Affirmative action should be abolished.

Discussion in 'Politics' started by TimeTraveler, Sep 26, 2006.

  1. TimeTraveler Immortalist Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,023
    I notice, a lot of people here are trapped in the racial world view. As a result, people are trapped in old ideas, and in applying old ideas to solve new problems.

    Efficiency is important to the success of any machine, including economic machines. Affirmative action increases diversity, but it does so at a cost. The cost is that it promotes racism indirectly by focusing on differences.

    I have a better idea. The main goal behind affirmative action is to promote unity and efficiency. So the question is, what is the best way to do that?

    One way, is to simply provide unity incentives. Instead of punishing qualified white males to promote diversity, we should instead provide incentives to white males to promote diversity and unity. The best way to do this is to use the tax system.

    Greater unity should mean lower taxes, meaing tax incentives to anyone who promotes unity. The more women you hire, the lower your taxes. The more minorities you hire, the lower your taxes. If your business is diverse according to guidelines, you should actually be able to earn money for promoting diversity and unity.

    Affirmative action is wrong, you should not punish qualified employees. You should instead reward shareholders, CEO's, and the corporation itself for doing what is rational, and in the best interest of the bottom line.

    So one replacement for affirmative action could be, unity tax deductions. Another replacement for affirmative action could be, unity credits, where individuals who choose to run their business or give to charities which promote unity, can actually recieve credits for doing so.

    The goal, to promote unity. The benefit will be to every American, because a united America is fundamentally stronger. The result, will be that there will be no need for affirmative action, or any race based policies, because the market itself will regulate diversity due to the fact that unity increases income potential.

    This is just one basic idea. It will not end racism outside the workplace. It will not end cronyism inside the workplace, but it's one step in the directon of full employement, and full employment is the most efficent direction.

    Ok, I ask all for your comments, opinions, etc. I'm sure this idea, will piss off liberans and conservatives because it has no social bias and it's a more libertarian market based solution. I still like to hear the pros and cons.
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. Count Sudoku Banned Banned

    Messages:
    1,229
    Whether you punish or force or bribe companies to hire people they wouldn't hire otherwise, you end up discriminating against better qualified Whites and hiring inferior people which is not efficient. I could argue that the NBA discriminates against Whites and demand 4 out of 5 players always be White but if I was successful the quality of basketball might decline and better Black players would not be playing.

    Remember as well that affirmative action requires a bureaucracy and enforcement which require time and money which is a waste of resources in itself.
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. TimeTraveler Immortalist Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,023

    Tax breaks aren't bribes, it's about promoting economic efficiency, to have the end result be full employement of all citizens of the United States.

    The corporation decides how they promote unity, but corporations should be pursaded to promote unity because the government benefits through the increased economic spending of each of the workers. It's in the corporations best interest to promote unity because white males cost the most, so unless the white male really is worth more to the corporation, is it not rational to do whats in the best interest of the share holders and the corporation itself?



    Remember as well that affirmative action requires a bureaucracy and enforcement which require time and money which is a waste of resources in itself.


    I never said I support affirmative action or a huge bureaucracy. I specifically said I support efficiency. A corporation filled with bureaucracy, just to support a racial quota, black or white, asian, or a gender quota, is no better. This is why I say we should let the market decide, by giving incentives such as tax deductions, credits, etc. These tax deductions and incentives are simply to help the corporation do what is in the best interest of the corporation and it's ability to remain and stay profitable. Unity is profitable, it's a fact, and it's more efficient. The best way to promote unity, is simply by lowering the tax burden on corporations who wish to do what is rational AND ethical. If a corporation truly believes that white males are more qualified, then white males should also be the most profitable, and therefore white males will be hired anyway. However if a corporation comes to the conclusion that race, gender and other human properties don't matter, then the corporation will simply take the tax cut and be done with it. The tax cut will allow a corporation that for example, has an all white male workforce, that is on the verge of going out of business, to hire a more diverse workforce, and as a way to turn the business around from the red into the black, or even into profitability, by bringing more diverse minds and ideas into the corporation. This is about as rational as you can get because it does not take into account race, gender, or education, with the only interest being the bottom line and unity.

    Whether you punish or force or bribe companies to hire people they wouldn't hire otherwise, you end up discriminating against better qualified Whites and hiring inferior people which is not efficient. I could argue that the NBA discriminates against Whites and demand 4 out of 5 players always be White but if I was successful the quality of basketball might decline and better Black players would not be playing.


    I never mentioned that corporations must hire from a draft system. What does pro sports have to do with the corporation? I'm talking about the fact that, to a corporation, the only thing that should matter is profitability. If white males really are the most qualified as you say, a corporation will have no problem paying your salary and giving up the tax incentives because the corporation will have enough money to afford to hire in this way.

    What if your corporation does not have billions of dollars and can only afford to hire the cheapest labor, or the most cost effective labor, or the most efficient workforce? Well of course a united workforce is always more efficient than a divided workforce, and unity has nothing to do with race. You can hire a person from a different county for each employee, and you can have greater unity due to the workplace policies than if you hire all white males with the wrong policies, and then you add the tax incentives, this is just so corporations can pay for the new policies which will be implemented. Each corporation can define what unity is, in their own terms, and if you want an all white company, you can define race as unity, and if your state agrees with this definition and if the court agrees, then thats what it will be for your corporation, and all this will do is make the highly qualified others, move to the corporation which has their definition of unity, it will actually improve the efficiency of the market because companies like yours won't have to hire people who you and your employees don't want.
     
    Last edited: Sep 27, 2006
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. Fraggle Rocker Staff Member

    Messages:
    24,690
    The only benefit of Affirmative Discrimination was that after countless centuries we white males got to actually feel what it was like to not have rights because of our sex and color. I think in the cosmic scheme of things it probably accomplished some good. We actually walked a mile in those moccasins.
     
  8. G. F. Schleebenhorst England != UK Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,213
    Timetraveler, you are going on about what makes an efficient economy, an efficient machine, bla bla bla, but what you have failed to realise is that the number one thing that ensures such a thing is meritocracy rather than affirmative action (or "racism" and "sexism", its real names) or nepotism.

    The best candidate should get the job, and that's it.
     
  9. Count Sudoku Banned Banned

    Messages:
    1,229
    To give tax deductions to companies who hire non-Whites is essentially taxing companies who do hire Whites. Don't be surprised even if this happened if companies continued to hire mostly Whites. Companies don't want to deal with the bullshit and expense of racism lawsuits everytime they discipline, fail to promote or try to fire non-White employees.
     
  10. Nickelodeon Banned Banned

    Messages:
    10,581
    Surely companies can't be stupid? If they want to make the most money they need the best people, regardless of them being black or white. Why not hire someone based on ability?
     
  11. TimeTraveler Immortalist Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,023

    Meritocracy is always impossible. Endorsing meritocracy is as utopian as endorsing communism. It's not in human nature to be fair, so if we assume humans by nature can never be fair and will always hire their friends and family members by instinct, it makes sense to encourage a meritocracy based on profitability, not based on race, sex, gender, or anything of this sort.

    I'd think a computer would be more fair than any human could be at hiring, but since we want to keep humans in the hiring process, it makes sense to organize a merit policy around greed, selishness, and unity. If you are greedy, unity is in your best interest, not merit, because unity can be calculated in numbers, while merit cannot. You can measure unity, in a very straight forward way, while merit is impossible to measure until later on, after a company is profitable or sinking.
     
  12. TimeTraveler Immortalist Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,023
    Sure, are you going to let a computer decide ability? The reason we cannot hire on ability is because it's impossible to know someones true abilities until after you hire them and find out. So if you hire people on any group of qualifications you could end up wasting your money. However if you hire based on unity, you simply hire a bunch of people who can be united, and then you create the jobs and positions for the workforce, or move them around into the positions that best suit them. Yes there should be capable, but I don't think in the future merit will be a big issue anymore, there will be no shortage of skills, but there will be a shortage of experience. The technology will make up for the skills gap as the type of labor changes.

    There is one way to hire based on ability, and that's to let a computer and software algorithm do all the hiring and firing, however while this would be economically efficient, many middle manager types want to keep their sense of heirarchy and power within the corporation and will fight a merit based computerized system, so we must accept that merit based hiring is always impossible and never going to be fair. There will always be quotas, there will never be merit or fairness, and we should simply reward corporations for doing what is profitable by giving tax reductions to unified companies.

    A unified workplace is a workplace where every employee functions as a unit within the company, a unit which is like a cube or lego that can be placed around in different positions and orders, retrained over and over as the need arrives. This is how it works in Japan and in China, they have so much unity in their workforce there that people are almost never fired and the employees become the corporation itself.

    What I'm saying is, by promoting unity you promote job security, you promote employee loyalty, you promote profitability, you promote efficiency, and you promote flexibility for the employee who might want different hours, different job titles, or just the freedom to be treated as a member and not just a worthless number. I think we all can understand this.
     
  13. Jeff 152 Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    364
    Affirmative Action is hypocritical, bottom line. So is busing.
     
  14. Count Sudoku Banned Banned

    Messages:
    1,229
    While people will hire lesser qualified friends etc, it is less of a problem than forcing people to hire who they don't want. Companies who hire based on friendship instead of merit suffer from not hiring the best person and lose in the marketplace to companies who do hire on the basis of merit. Speaking of which, where do you think nepotism and the like is a bigger problem...business or government? I know which I would choose based on my work experiences.
     
  15. TimeTraveler Immortalist Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,023
    A corporation should not be forced to believe in concepts such as race. I never said anything about hiring or not hiring whites, you decided to think about whites. I said unity. You because you are a believer of race, you believe unity is race, but unity is not in the dictionary listed as race and therefore it's up to the corporation to define unity, based on state guidelines.

    This means unity could mean gender, height, citizenship, or any other definition, but I guess you literally cannot think outside of the racial view of the world to understand.
     
  16. TimeTraveler Immortalist Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,023
    I don't know what you mean by business or the government, that's not really a question I can understand. What I can say is that, unity is profitable, and efficient, and I'm also going to say that humans have no way to know who is qualified before they hire, I mean it would take a lot more information about a person than an interview, and a personality test, if you know what I mean, and even still, I said promote unity, because unity is the only form of merit that matters.

    In the military, or in the family, it's unity that keeps the family strong. You don't want a member of your family to feel unwanted and go work for your rival, you want them to feel accepted, loved, united. It's basic, it's as basic as magnetism. We have more strength together than we have apart. A corporation has more strength together than it has apart. Employees have more strength together than they have apart. A country has more strength together than it has apart. So yes, unity should be encouraged, but you cant do this by dividing people up into race and gender, and that's why I'm not a supporter of affirmative action, but I am a supporter of unity, I'm not a supporter of race, but I'm a supporter of the concept of corporation, country, and the community. Corporations can either helps us or hurt us depending on how we use them.
     
  17. TimeTraveler Immortalist Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,023

    Busing should be a decision decided by the individual states, but if a kid can afford to pay for the bus, well you cannot tell them they cannot go to the school. I think it should be up to the family to figure out how to handle the busing situation, or the community, or families, I don't think the schools should be forced to segregate, but I don't think the schools should be forced to intergrate. I don't think force has to come from the federal levels, it's moral to desegregate, so if you want your kid to go to a moral school, then the school will desegregate itself, this is if your school believes segregation is immoral and you agree. If you believe segregation is moral it would be good if you send your kid to whatever school enforces that morality even if I disagree with it, because if you put a kid with that worldview in the wrong school, it can only reinforce that opinion.
     
  18. madanthonywayne Morning in America Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    12,461
    Because that's racist, unless the minority always comes out on top. Like in basketball.

    An all black professional basketball team is not racist. Profesional boxing with every heavyweight champion black is not racist. But an all white management of a corporation, you bet that's racist! We need to tax companies that have the audacity to hire white guys!
     
  19. Count Sudoku Banned Banned

    Messages:
    1,229
    It was your idea to suggest taxing companies less for having minority hires (which in effect is taxing companies extra for hiring Whites). I am totally against any kind of affirmative action so in this case, I appear to be less racist than you are.
     
  20. Count Sudoku Banned Banned

    Messages:
    1,229
    Just to let you know, all 4 heavyweight belts are now currently held by Whites. Betcha didn't know this, the media isn't big on celebrating White acheivements.
     
  21. G. F. Schleebenhorst England != UK Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,213
    Probably because white people don't have to celebrate every little pissy thing as if we've just put a man on the moon like a certain race does.
     
  22. Nickelodeon Banned Banned

    Messages:
    10,581
    You obviously don't live in the UK!!
     
  23. TimeTraveler Immortalist Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,023

    I never said minority. You people are changing my words. I said unity. Women are not minorities in this country, they are 50% of the population at least.
     

Share This Page