To the folks on the liberal side, african or not, here's a couple of questions for ya: Is Jeopardy! a part of of government-run program in any form? Did he become a winner because of any government conducted program? Which one would elevate a positive collective image of african americans and possibly reinforce it?: A. Have Jesse "I'ma sue your donkey back to stone age" Jackson and Al "it's racism!" Sharpton prevail in every circumstances, and have african american gain unfair advantages when enrolling into schools and seeking jobs -OR- B. fight your way through from ground zero while churning out tons of doctors, engineers, lawyers and scientists, like the asians had done? I do hope you can answer honestly, if you care to answer at all.
I think you need to get a grip mate. Have you ever asked the same question of white contestants? Of course not.
Although there is still a noticeable amount of racism in American society, ones opportunities in life seem to be more strongly influenced by their socioeconomic status than how people treat them based on their colour. That we still have a disproportionate number of folks among traditionally-oppressed groups (e.g. along lines of race, ethnicity, sex) of poorer status than their traditionally-privileged counterparts is a demonstration of capitalism's failure to provide level competitive playing fields on which personal merit usually trumps the circumstances into which one was born in shaping their future. There are plenty of inspiring exceptions to the rule, I will cede that, but free markets are no guarantee that most people will decide to cast aside prejudices and bigoted attitudes in pursuit of increased efficiency and profitable entrepreneurial activities. Human beings are not as entirely well-informed, rational, or motivated in the ways many folks seem to assume.
Yea are right. But then again, do human, in general, stride for well-being and happiness? Yes, a lot of people would shutdown their brain and waste 5 bucks on a snow globe. But how many of them would do so when making the choice between keeping 5000 bucks and obtaining an LV handbag? Furthermore, who gets to hire people? the relatively affluent. Why did they become affluent in the first place? For making the right fiscal decision at the right time with above-average frequency. How did they manage to do that? By thinking rationally and critically. Will they care about a talented worker's humble background? Not likely. Will there be, say racism-themed restaurant? Yes. But it limits its patronizers to individuals that share the same peculiar set of values. And we shall not forget about the fact that free market most certainly means people can voice themselves freely. Newspaper reports and demonstrators protesting off but in the vicinity of such restaurants will make such business establishment and its likes struggle for one hard day after another.
It all depends on the priorities and customs of consumers. The value of goods and services are relative, and I reckon a consumer will be pretty tempted to gobble an item up if the price tag is lower than whatever subjective value of the item the consumer has in mind. Markets are great for helping us set prices, though some people will feel for one reason or another that a price is exorbitant or is understated enough to be a great bargain! In many instances, absolutely. There are also circumstances under which the relatively affluent were simply at the right place at the right time to snag an uncommonly excellent opportunity. Sometimes being ruthless, manipulative of ones coworkers and/or customers, and amoral in ones business conduct can certainly lend one a competitive advantage as well. Even many of the self-made, morally commendable affluent folk did not entirely pull their own weight - one does not need to inherent lots of money to get an unearned leg up on others. Aye - a splendid, albeit latent example of capital swaying decisions. A talented worker with a humble background generally lacks the prestige of having gone to an illustrious place of higher learning or past experience of working with highly-reputed employers. The worker may not have the money to dress sharply to an interview, could have silently suspicion-raising gaps of unemployment in their past, or unintentionally convey an image that triggers prejudices (not necessarily racial, mind you) in an interviewer or employer that could in my opinion compel them to underrate the attractiveness of the applicant relative to their competitors. Capital takes many forms. It can be symbolic, cultural, social, or economic. A rather clever bloke in the field of sociology (a neo-Weberian, not a Marxist thinker) by the name of Pierre Bourdieu wrote at length on the nature of such forms of capital, suggesting that the symbolic form in particular is the most important of all. Using assets of the before-mentioned types to ones advantage is how I reckon one develops competitive advantages in the market and eventually - if placed in conditions which offer sufficient opportunities - achieves success. Sometimes superficial qualities about people matter more than their capabilities relative to others. When a person plies the labor market, not all the factors that make them more or less competitive in seeking open positions are things they can reasonably be expected to control. I will cede that a lot of the time discrimination along such lines is rather benign. It's just that folks tend to suffer an illusion that the objectively "best" person for a job always gets it, that those who work hard and smart invariably achieve great financial success, and that the lazy and poor in society are one and the same. The lack of level playing fields sees to it that the average lesser-privileged person needs to work harder and use the capital at their disposal more cleverly than the average greater-privileged competitor to reach and sustain an equally comfortable standard of living. Not that I'm calling for equality of results - merely pointing out that some folks ultimately get the short end of the stick in spite of being great people with good skill sets and commendable work ethics. I don't think it makes the economic system we've got bad, per se, but perhaps could suggest some of the arguably "unfair" qualities of how the markets work also slightly impair their efficiency- and productivity-conveying boons to society. Absolutely! For instance, there is a saloon near my small town where it is tacitly understood that people of Native American descent and - to a lesser extent consumers who are not from around these parts - are unwelcome. The business does well but losses out on some of its potential for business when the small number of people it discriminates against go elsewhere to do business. The real trouble comes when racist attitudes permeate an entire area, to an extent that there is nowhere a person can access goods and services of comparable quality from providers who are willing to serve "their kind." When a culture embraces bigotry, I reckon it is a detriment to the performance of their economy; it has negative impacts on both the oppressors' (to a lesser extent) and victims' (to a greater extent) standards of living. The hard part seems to be convincing hold-outs of bigoted practices that the value of running "pure" businesses is less than the value of the increased opportunities for profit they would have without weighing themselves down with those concerns about racial/ethnic/etc. purity. Because the cost/benefit analysis relies on subjective values, there may be no way to convince them that their policies are illogical. And that is aside from the possibility that, given the right conditions, a racist or sexist or otherwise bigoted business could be made extremely profitable by cornering the niche for people who share those attitudes. Whether or not we have the government intervene, it obviously gets pretty controversial. :\ Out of curiosity, respectfully assuming for just a moment from your political leanings that you may be opposed to such state interventions in the market, would you say it is still a good idea for private interests and consumers to discourage bigoted business practices via the culminating, potentially-momentous impact of many individual, seemingly small and unimportant acts and decisions? Or would it perhaps be for the best for folks to leave each other be and embrace whatever outcomes ensue? Is the goal of equality of opportunity at all important to pursue in a capitalist economy?
