3 ms·

> civil rights act of 1964 which has screwed every minority applicant at a small business....The worst thing to happen to minorites in the US was the civil Righ

> civil rights act of 1964 which has screwed every minority applicant at a small business....The worst thing to happen to minorites in the US was the civil Rights Act of 1964. That's an...interesting perspective on what most consider to be landmark legislation in American history. So I looked it up, because I didn't know what you were talking about. "Small businesses with fewer than 25 employees were originally allowed to continue discriminating under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The Equal Opportunity Employment Act of 1972 changed the law to require all businesses with 15 or more employees to adhere to Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964."[1] I'm still shocked that discrimination is allowed for any business at all. But you weren't entirely correct. Also, the Act's other benefits have to be weighed against allowing discrimination in small businesses. Small businesses that were racist and discriminatory before the Civil Rights Act could continue to be so after it, but could only grow up to a certain size. That's still an improvement on what existed previously, which was that they could be racist and discriminatory forever and always. If I was a minority in the 60s I'd consider federally guaranteed right to vote, equal education, stay at any hotel, use any public water fountain or bus, and be considered on an equal basis for federal jobs, private sector jobs in 15/25+ employee firms, loans, assistance programs and the rest to be a massive gain over the status quo. You're entitled to your opinion on the CRA of 1964, but to most people it's going to sound bizarre. Sorry. > The civil rights act prevents minority only businesses ta boot! I don't know what "ta boot" means so the meaning of this statement is unclear. 1. https://aapf.org/civil-rights-act https://aapf.org/civil-rights-act

ghastmaster 7y ago
Just because a law makes it illegal to discriminate does not eliminate discrimination. In the United States small businesses account for the most employees. Small business owners do not hire minorities because they risk being sued when they fire them. There is less risk to not hire than there is to hire due to the Civil Rights Act. This results in less minority hires. If a minority runs a business and only wants to hire minorities they have a greater risk of being sued because it is easier for a person in majority race to prove discrimnation.
- jogjayr 7y ago
  > Just because a law makes it illegal to discriminate does not eliminate discrimination. It increases the cost of doing so, which is really the point. People and businesses respond to incentives. > small businesses account for the most employees. That's not been remotely true for the past 26 years (you're welcome to find data before that). Businesses with up to 19 employees (i.e. the ones exempt from the Equal Opportunity Employment Act of 1972) employed only 20% of employees in 1993. And that share has fallen over time - it was about 17% in 2019.[1] And even if it were true, all the other benefits of the CRA would still outweigh this one flaw. I think you underestimate the effects of generations of violent voter suppression, and segregation in education, businesses, housing, and other opportunities. > If a minority runs a business and only wants to hire minorities A small business (< 15 employees) that only wants to hire minorities would also be exempt from the Equal Opportunity Employment Act wouldn't they? I'm not a lawyer, I still can't believe this is actually legal, and maybe there's some other law elsewhere that makes this illegal. Discrimination is wrong, no matter who does it. But what you're saying wouldn't happen either. 1. https://www.bls.gov/web/cewbd/table_f.txt https://www.bls.gov/web/cewbd/table_f.txt
  - ghastmaster 7y ago
    > It increases the cost of doing so, which is really the point. People and businesses respond to incentives. The CRA increased the incentives to discriminate for small businesses as I am trying to illustrate above and below. > That's not been remotely true for the past 26 years (you're welcome to find data before that). Businesses with up to 19 employees (i.e. the ones exempt from the Equal Opportunity Employment Act of 1972) employed only 20% of employees in 1993. And that share has fallen over time - it was about 17% in 2019.[1] It is not about the mandates in law. It is about reality and risk. If I want to sue my employer for firing me due to racial reasons, I have to prove in court(or EEOC has to prove) using company statistics(unless explicit evidence exists) that they have a practice of discrimination. This is easier to do against larger employers with more employees. For me to sue a small employer, whether they employ 100(52% of jobs are attributed to 100 employee or less businesses according to Texas Law Now;2012) or 19 employees the statistics are harder to prove because of the small sample size. Employers know this. That establishes a difficulty for minorities to sue small businesses, which allows small businesses to discriminate. Combine that with the fact that if an applicant does not get hired, it is incredibly difficult to even begin a suit without internal knowledge of the company, ergo it is less risky for employers to not hire minorities to begin with. > And even if it were true, all the other benefits of the CRA would still outweigh this one flaw. I think you underestimate the effects of generations of violent voter suppression, and segregation in education, businesses, housing, and other opportunities. I find little comfort in being able to vote, go to school, etc if it results in poor opportunities to be gainfully employed. As I stated before, prior to the CRA wealth(power to influence vote/education/business/etc) of the largest minority group in the US was rising; according to Thomas Sowell.

ghastmaster 7y ago

Just because a law makes it illegal to discriminate does not eliminate discrimination. In the United States small businesses account for the most employees. Small business owners do not hire minorities because they risk being sued when they fire them. There is less risk to not hire than there is to hire due to the Civil Rights Act. This results in less minority hires. If a minority runs a business and only wants to hire minorities they have a greater risk of being sued because it is easier for a person in majority race to prove discrimnation.

jogjayr 7y ago
> Just because a law makes it illegal to discriminate does not eliminate discrimination. It increases the cost of doing so, which is really the point. People and businesses respond to incentives. > small businesses account for the most employees. That's not been remotely true for the past 26 years (you're welcome to find data before that). Businesses with up to 19 employees (i.e. the ones exempt from the Equal Opportunity Employment Act of 1972) employed only 20% of employees in 1993. And that share has fallen over time - it was about 17% in 2019.[1] And even if it were true, all the other benefits of the CRA would still outweigh this one flaw. I think you underestimate the effects of generations of violent voter suppression, and segregation in education, businesses, housing, and other opportunities. > If a minority runs a business and only wants to hire minorities A small business (< 15 employees) that only wants to hire minorities would also be exempt from the Equal Opportunity Employment Act wouldn't they? I'm not a lawyer, I still can't believe this is actually legal, and maybe there's some other law elsewhere that makes this illegal. Discrimination is wrong, no matter who does it. But what you're saying wouldn't happen either. 1. https://www.bls.gov/web/cewbd/table_f.txt https://www.bls.gov/web/cewbd/table_f.txt
- ghastmaster 7y ago
  > It increases the cost of doing so, which is really the point. People and businesses respond to incentives. The CRA increased the incentives to discriminate for small businesses as I am trying to illustrate above and below. > That's not been remotely true for the past 26 years (you're welcome to find data before that). Businesses with up to 19 employees (i.e. the ones exempt from the Equal Opportunity Employment Act of 1972) employed only 20% of employees in 1993. And that share has fallen over time - it was about 17% in 2019.[1] It is not about the mandates in law. It is about reality and risk. If I want to sue my employer for firing me due to racial reasons, I have to prove in court(or EEOC has to prove) using company statistics(unless explicit evidence exists) that they have a practice of discrimination. This is easier to do against larger employers with more employees. For me to sue a small employer, whether they employ 100(52% of jobs are attributed to 100 employee or less businesses according to Texas Law Now;2012) or 19 employees the statistics are harder to prove because of the small sample size. Employers know this. That establishes a difficulty for minorities to sue small businesses, which allows small businesses to discriminate. Combine that with the fact that if an applicant does not get hired, it is incredibly difficult to even begin a suit without internal knowledge of the company, ergo it is less risky for employers to not hire minorities to begin with. > And even if it were true, all the other benefits of the CRA would still outweigh this one flaw. I think you underestimate the effects of generations of violent voter suppression, and segregation in education, businesses, housing, and other opportunities. I find little comfort in being able to vote, go to school, etc if it results in poor opportunities to be gainfully employed. As I stated before, prior to the CRA wealth(power to influence vote/education/business/etc) of the largest minority group in the US was rising; according to Thomas Sowell.