2 ms·

> The CRA increased the incentives to discriminate for small businesses as I am trying to illustrate above and below. And as I showed, small businesses make up

> The CRA increased the incentives to discriminate for small businesses as I am trying to illustrate above and below. And as I showed, small businesses make up a minority of employment opportunities. The CRA increased employment opportunities literally everywhere else such as in government jobs. To go from "100% of businesses discriminate" to "50% of businesses discriminate" is an improvement in absolute terms. It didn't take away job opportunities that existed. If a small business was racist before, it would continue to be racist afterward. Do you have proof that small businesses began discriminating more after the CRA than they did before? > This is easier to do against larger employers with more employees. Citation needed. > For me to sue a small employer, whether they employ 100...or 19 employees the statistics are harder to prove because of the small sample size. Citation needed. In a business that small, everyone knows everyone else. It should be way easier to gather data. > That establishes a difficulty for minorities to sue small businesses Whereas before the CRA the option to sue didn't exist at all and all businesses, of every size, could discriminate with impunity. > I find little comfort in being able to vote, go to school Fortunately most people disagree with you. > As I stated before, prior to the CRA wealth...of the largest minority group in the US was rising; according to Thomas Sowell. That would appear to coincide with the post-WW2 economic boom. I imagine every group in the US got wealthier in that period. I'm not well-versed with all the factors and history after the CRA, but correlation ain't causation.

ghastmaster 7y ago
I was trying to logically explain the reality of the situation. I would have a hard time trying to find sources that are going to admit to discriminating publicly. I cannot imagine that survey exists. I'm done.
- jogjayr 7y ago
  > I was trying to logically explain the reality So was I. My logic is simple to explain: Pre-CRA - 100% of employers (small businesses, large businesses, medium business, non-profits, governments) could discriminate, and many did. Post-CRA - < 100% of employers could discriminate Therefore, the number of jobs available to everyone (minorities and non-minorities alike) went up. It's simple math. I don't understand what your logic is. Because you've said both: "Small business owners do not hire minorities because they risk being sued when they fire them." and "If I want to sue my employer for firing me due to racial reasons, I have to prove in court that they have a practice of discrimination. This is easier to do against larger employers [than]...a small employer. That establishes a difficulty for minorities to sue small businesses, which allows small businesses to discriminate." So minorities find it harder to sue small businesses, but, also, small business owners don't hire minorities because they risk being sued. What? And small businesses only worry about lawsuits by fired employees, but not ones by candidates who feel illegal bias was a factor in their rejection. Why? > I would have a hard time trying to find sources that are going to admit to discriminating publicly Don't necessarily need that. Economists have all sorts of ingenious ways to tease out this information from other labor and employment data, EEO surveys that many employees and candidates fill out, and other things. If there's any evidence of what you're suggesting, there would be clues in that data. > I'm done. Me too, friend. Take care and a (slightly belated) happy new year. :-)

ghastmaster 7y ago

I was trying to logically explain the reality of the situation. I would have a hard time trying to find sources that are going to admit to discriminating publicly. I cannot imagine that survey exists. I'm done.

jogjayr 7y ago
> I was trying to logically explain the reality So was I. My logic is simple to explain: Pre-CRA - 100% of employers (small businesses, large businesses, medium business, non-profits, governments) could discriminate, and many did. Post-CRA - < 100% of employers could discriminate Therefore, the number of jobs available to everyone (minorities and non-minorities alike) went up. It's simple math. I don't understand what your logic is. Because you've said both: "Small business owners do not hire minorities because they risk being sued when they fire them." and "If I want to sue my employer for firing me due to racial reasons, I have to prove in court that they have a practice of discrimination. This is easier to do against larger employers [than]...a small employer. That establishes a difficulty for minorities to sue small businesses, which allows small businesses to discriminate." So minorities find it harder to sue small businesses, but, also, small business owners don't hire minorities because they risk being sued. What? And small businesses only worry about lawsuits by fired employees, but not ones by candidates who feel illegal bias was a factor in their rejection. Why? > I would have a hard time trying to find sources that are going to admit to discriminating publicly Don't necessarily need that. Economists have all sorts of ingenious ways to tease out this information from other labor and employment data, EEO surveys that many employees and candidates fill out, and other things. If there's any evidence of what you're suggesting, there would be clues in that data. > I'm done. Me too, friend. Take care and a (slightly belated) happy new year. :-)