The Looting Wage

[Pyotr]

Do we live in a world where all people are rational, or even most people? The claim was made that capitalism would in fact reduce discrimination. So I was asking for evidence of this.

Under real capitalism the government would be barred from initiating force against it's citizens. Currently the government forces employers to discriminate when making hiring decisions. They are forced to act as if an employee's value lies in his skin color, ethnicity or physical handicap instead of his individual abilities and character. Capitalism would get rid of this atrocity and many others.

[AlexL]

...the fact that you could have a businessman fire a black person, because he's black, and ruin that man's life (at least in the short term) and call it freedom....that doesn't work for me.

How strange that he didn't notice his color when he hired him...

Alex

[Paul McKeever]

In any case, I feel like Paul was trying to "hide" the parts of objectivism that aren't fun to talk about; its easy to be talkative when the host agrees with you and he bobbed his head on everything she said...until that where he quickly clammed up. Maybe he found it pragmatic to not take a principled stand.

Hi JohnS. I thought I made it pretty clear - by my recommendation that they just point a gun at my head and rob me rather than pretending it's not theft by having the government do it for them - that I oppose wealth redistribution. I try not to bob my head when someone is saying something I disagree with. I'm not sure which comment you are referring to re: me stopping to bob my head, but - if I get a chance - I'll try to have another look at it and give an explanation (if there is one). Sometimes, it's nothing more than a distraction in the studio, or a concentration (by me) upon some other matter.

In short: I don't think I've ever been accused of hiding my views on wealth redistribution of any sort, and I think I regularly make it pretty clear that "charity" isn't charity when it is does via a threat of force or physical force.

Here's a link to a recent interview by Canada's most well-respected political interviewer, Steve Paikin:

Listen to my answer when he asks "What do we owe one another?"...and keep in mind that this interview occurred and was distributed, WHILE I was running for public office (September 2007). Keep in mind, also, that I was speaking on behalf of an entire political party. Hopefully, thereafter, you will have reason to change your assessment concerning my integrity.

Cheers,

Paul

How strange that he didn't notice his color when he hired him...

Alex

Now you're thinking like an employment lawyer ;-) ...and like every rational individual should (which is NOT to imply that all employment lawyers are rational).

[Publius]

Let's not forget that nobody would do business with someone after it got out that they fired/refused to provide service to someone based on their skin colour

The vast majority of people in the modern world are not racists. They would no more consider not serving a man because of the colour of his skin than they would consider robbing and killing him outright.

Okay so now we're saying Capitalism only in America for the hypothetical here? Okay, fine. Well you would have the benefit of the most racially evolved society in the world to make your point. However, racism/discrimination in America is not dead, not even close. Take a trip to the South, particularly the rural parts of the south. Why do studies demonstrate people with African American sounding names do not get close to the same number of call backs when they submit a resume? Why do women make 75 cents on the dollar compared to men for doing the same job? If you put 100 strangers of different races in a room, they will group themselves together by race.

Beyond America, if you're a little familiar with say, oh just about every other culture in the world, most especially outside of Western Europe, the idea that the "vast majority" of people get along irregardless or race, well that is pure fantasy. Observe the recent ethnic wars in the Balkans, Rwanda, Indonesia, Sudan, Iraq, etc. The social hierarchy of Latin America is usually directly related to ethnic background. And racism can flare up again at any time. Look at Europe, as more immigrants from Africa come to work, you're seeing racial attitudes reemerge that haven't been seen in generations. In America, as the demographics rapidly change to bring whites closer to a minority, you may see something similar.

How do you think racism was reduced in this country? When you eliminate racist laws and allow Capitalism to work (as was done in the South), people relatively quickly decide that it is in their interest to deal with others as individuals as opposed to as members of a given race.

There were racist laws because the people demanded racist laws. You cannot separate the people from the government in a democracy. Just like you won't get an Objectivist government until most people want one. Do you think when the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was passed blacks started getting treated fairly the next day? In the North they didn't have Jim Crow laws for the most part, but racism was almost as rampant.

Racism has largely been tamped down due to a combination of education, assimilation, civil rights laws and enforcement. If someone has actual evidence, not conjecture, on how capitalism somehow reduces prejudice, I'd like to hear about it. Everyone hear is making that claim, based purely on a belief that it is true.

Currently the government forces employers to discriminate when making hiring decisions. They are forced to act as if an employee's value lies in his skin color, ethnicity or physical handicap instead of his individual abilities and character.

No they don't, unless the company has been found by a court of law to have discriminated against someone. Affirmative Action otherwise only applies to government hiring.

[KevinDW78]

Affirmative Action otherwise only applies to government hiring.

100% wrong. Private companies have to file annual EEO Reports with the government to prove that they are hiring minorities.

The Employer Information EEO-1 survey is conducted annually under the authority of Public Law 88-352, Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended by the Equal Employment Opportunity Act of 1972. All employers with 15 or more employees are covered by Public Law 88-352 and are required to keep employment records as specified by Commission regulations. Based on the number of employees and federal contract activities, certain large employers are required to file an EEO-1 report on an annual basis.

Standard Form 100 must be filed by -

All private employers who are: (1) subject to Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (as amended by the Equal Employment Opportunity Act of 1972) with 100 or more employees EXCLUDING State and local governments, primary and secondary school systems, institutions of higher education, Indian tribes and tax-exempt private membership clubs other than labor organizations; OR (2) subject to Title VII who have fewer than 100 employees if the company is owned or affiliated with another company, or there is centralized ownership, control or management (such as central control of personnel policies and labor relations) so that the group legally constitutes a single enterprise, and the entire enterprise employs a total of 100 or more employees.

Check for facts before making your assertions.

Edited November 12, 2008 by KevinDW78

[gags]

There were racist laws because the people demanded racist laws. You cannot separate the people from the government in a democracy. Just like you won't get an Objectivist government until most people want one. Do you think when the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was passed blacks started getting treated fairly the next day? In the North they didn't have Jim Crow laws for the most part, but racism was almost as rampant.

Well now, you've pretty much demolished the supposed morality of your social contract, haven't you? One of the central ideas behind a government which has a primary purpose of defending individual rights is that 51% of the racists can't demand that the other 49% have their rights violated. As for the evidence that capitalism reduces racism, it's all around you. Look at the countries where racism and tribalism are the most severe. Are they countries that respect individual rights? Do they have free markets in those countries? As for your statement that racism in the North was almost as rampant as the South, I'm sorry but you don't know what you're talking about.

Here's an excerpt written by George Reisman that explains how Capitalism and the profit motive defeat racism: http://www.capitalism.net/excerpts/1-931089-07-8.pdf

Also, why don't you provide all of us with a couple of examples where a non-capitalist society has been able to rid itself of racism strictly through legislation and restrictions on individual rights?

[Zip]

Beyond America, if you're a little familiar with say, oh just about every other culture in the world, most especially outside of Western Europe, the idea that the "vast majority" of people get along irregardless or race, well that is pure fantasy. Observe the recent ethnic wars in the Balkans, Rwanda, Indonesia, Sudan, Iraq, etc.

All in decidedly unfree nations. Quell Suprise!

[Publius]

100% wrong. Private companies have to file annual EEO Reports with the government to prove that they are hiring minorities.

Check for facts before making your assertions.

What are the differences between affirmative action and equal employment opportunity policies?

Equal employment opportunity (EEO) is best described as a policy of simple nondiscrimination, in compliance with legislation prohibiting all forms of intentional discrimination on the basis of race, color, sex, religion, or national origin. It specifically outlaws discrimination in employment in all public and private sector organizations with 15 or more employees, as well as labor organizations and employment agencies.

Affirmative action goes further by requiring employers to take steps to achieve a balanced representation of workers.

Thus, affirmative action and EEO policies both strive to maintain justice. Classical affirmative action, however, involves effort. In contrast, equal employment opportunity policies are passive.

Well now, you've pretty much demolished the supposed morality of your social contract, haven't you?

Why do you call it my social contract? I'm just simply educating you on philosophical underpinnings of the soceity you live in. I never said I agreed with it. It's going to help you a lot in the long run if you argue with the actual concepts that are in opposition to Objectivism, not some cartoonish version.

As for the evidence that capitalism reduces racism, it's all around you. Look at the countries where racism and tribalism are the most severe. Are they countries that respect individual rights? Do they have free markets in those countries?

Sorry, but you don't seem to be grasping the difference between correlation and causation. Where is the mechanism and how is it demonstrated?

As for your statement that racism in the North was almost as rampant as the South, I'm sorry but you don't know what you're talking about.

When blacks started moving out of the south during the Great Migration from 1910-1940, northern racism came into full view. Look at all the race riots that took place, particularity in Detroit. There's plenty of evidence for ubiquitous white racism. They just never passed Jim Crow laws because there were not that many blacks in the north.

Here's an excerpt written by George Reisman

Trying to read it but it gets cut off on page 4.

Also, why don't you provide all of us with a couple of examples where a non-capitalist society has been able to rid itself of racism strictly through legislation and restrictions on individual rights?

I never made that claim that you're asking me to provide evidence for. People here, on the other hand, said that they have no doubt that capitalism thwarts racism, but yet I have seen no evidence yet.

Edited November 13, 2008 by Publius

[agrippa1]

http://ca.youtube.com/watch?v=6rkb5orSAbQ

Great job.

It always amazes me that people fail to see min wage laws from the employee's point of view, which is: The gov't forbids you from taking a job for less than x per hour. What right do they have to tell anyone what their time is worth?

The other thing the advocates of the so-called minimum wage will never understand is that the true minimum wage is always zero. We should insist on calling the contrived one the "alternate minimum wage" to drive that point home.

The people who can't find jobs at the alternate minimum wage are forced to be non-productive and live on true minimum wage. Very humanitarian.

[D'kian]

Okay so now we're saying Capitalism only in America for the hypothetical here? Okay, fine. Well you would have the benefit of the most racially evolved society in the world to make your point. However, racism/discrimination in America is not dead, not even close.

The answer to racism isn't capitalism per se, but a pre-requisite of capitalism: individualism.

Racism is a form of colelctivism, and a primitive one at that. It holds that members of a race are all the same. Individualism tells you, among other things, that every person is an individual and should be judged on hiw own merits and actions, without reference to any sort of incidental group he happens to belong to. Skin color is not something you choose, but something you're born with. It's also irrelevant to who you are and to what you can accomplish, if you're treated as an individual and not as a mindless atom in some cultural substance determined by race.

Why do women make 75 cents on the dollar compared to men for doing the same job?

Because men are more likely to put in longer hours and work on weekends when needed. Men are also less likely than women to ask for a leave of abscence on having a child, paternity leave laws nothwithstanding. Therefore the productivity of men is, overall, more predictable, as is their permanence on the job.

So as a group men make more money and are seen as less risky investments. As individuals, however, the statistics tell you little or nothing. the company I work for has some women in high positions with the same salaries as their male counterparts, and we operate in Mexico City.

Finally, these days in America, outside of a few fringe groups, being seen as racist is like the kiss of death. It's not socially aceptable anymore. It's not even tolerated. More than a few prominent people ahve lost their prominent jobs for uttering either racist or sexist comments, or merely comments that were perceived as being racist or sexist. I even recall some kind of controversy over the use of the word "niggardly" (which means parsimonous or frugal and has nothing to do with race). Hell, there was a move to ban Mark Twain from school libraries because he uses the "N-word" in his works, never mind that he was not a racist and he moved to Nevada rather than fight for the South in the USCW.

[Publius]

So as a group men make more money and are seen as less risky investments. As individuals, however, the statistics tell you little or nothing. the company I work for has some women in high positions with the same salaries as their male counterparts, and we operate in Mexico City.

I give you points for trying, because I agree with some of what you say about women in the workplace, but your thesis falls apart when you get to "So as a group...". At this point you seemed to catch the incongruity of the first part of your post with that paragraph and tried to make amends. Simply put, women are prejudged before they even get the job based on their belonging to a group. This is why they are not paid the same. Women don't get paid less after they come back from maternity, or when they get pregnant, or when they give hints of their intentions. It is a systemic bias against women as a group that leads to the pay disparity. Your theory would be more applicable to disparities in hiring.

Finally, these days in America, outside of a few fringe groups, being seen as racist is like the kiss of death. It's not socially aceptable anymore. It's not even tolerated.

It's not socially acceptable anymore to talk about. But as a white person, I can account for a fair prevalence of racist thoughts among people of all economic, age and social groups I interact with. Most of the time is is fairly benign. People customarily preface their comments with, "I'm not racist, but...". Good upstanding people still get nervous when blacks move in the neighborhood. Much (though I wouldn't say most) of the anti immigration rhetoric in this country is marked by racist sentiment towards Latinos.

And perhaps you caught this story.

[gags]

Why do you call it my social contract? I'm just simply educating you on philosophical underpinnings of the soceity you live in. I never said I agreed with it. It's going to help you a lot in the long run if you argue with the actual concepts that are in opposition to Objectivism, not some cartoonish version.

Thank goodness, you almost had me fooled there. The next time I need to be confronted with a bunch of illogical arguments in favor of an unsupportable political concept, I'll be sure to look you up. Thanks for the education.

Sorry, but you don't seem to be grasping the difference between correlation and causation. Where is the mechanism and how is it demonstrated?

That’s already been explained. Racism is both irrational and immoral. Under Capitalism, it is also against your economic self interest. What part of the explanation don’t you understand?

When blacks started moving out of the south during the Great Migration from 1910-1940, northern racism came into full view. Look at all the race riots that took place, particularity in Detroit. There's plenty of evidence for ubiquitous white racism. They just never passed Jim Crow laws because there were not that many blacks in the north.

Nobody said there was NO racism in the North. However, it was not “ubiquitous”, nor was racism in the North “almost as rampant” as in the South, as you claimed.

[Chris.S]

+1 vote in the next election if there are any FP members running in my area of Toronto. (+2 votes if the member has a beard like yours)

[Chris.S]

hey Paul, have you or the president of FPO tried to get on The Hour at all? it's probably a long-shot, and you'd have to handle a lot of questions from a socialist perspective, but i think it'd be a great way to reach a large and young audience.