3 ms·
When was this back in the day? Prior to the 1972 amendment to the CRA? Because no, it did not work.
by ameister14 3y ago
When was this back in the day? Prior to the 1972 amendment to the CRA? Because no, it did not work.
- EVa5I7bHFq9mnYK 3y agoYou probably have items in your house made by people working for $100 a month - which is less than what slaves in mid 19th century's America earned. But this is not discrimination, this is different, right?
- lawlessone 3y ago>which is less than what slaves in mid 19th century's America earned. slaves aren't paid
- EVa5I7bHFq9mnYK 3y agoA skilled slave in Upper South could make $500/year, $20k in today's money.
- ameister14 3y ago>You probably have items in your house made by people working for $100 a month - which is less than what slaves in mid 19th century's America earned. But this is not discrimination, this is different, right? Not trying to straw-man you but it seems that your point is that because it is possible to skirt US anti-discrimination laws by importing from overseas, the US should have no anti-discrimination laws? That is not a good point. Would you please clarify if there is something I missed?
- EVa5I7bHFq9mnYK 3y agoNo, my point is, it is immoral that anti-discrimination sentiment stops dead at US border.
- ameister14 3y agoInteresting, that seems totally at odds with your earlier statement of "Back in the day we just used to say life isn't fair, play with what you have in the best way you could. And it worked." Yes, I agree, anti-discrimination shouldn't stop at the border.