How Anti-discriminatory Laws Discriminate

Throughout the history of Representative Democracy (for you who were educated by government schools like me, that is where representatives are elected by the people to make laws and govern) politicians have been passing laws that effect economics and social policy with the intention of making a positive difference and being able to take credit for it. This of course helps in their re-election bids. In the following two posts I will explain how those policies (usually enacted by liberals and thus the democrat party) might be well intended but instead destroy people's lives.

Beginning primarily with Roosevelt and the New Deal but really escalating during Lyndon Johnson's Great Society Programs, these policies began a trend that has now all but destroyed the Black American family. I am in support of the 13th, 14th, and 15th amendments in that it freed slaves, gave them freedom, and gave them the right to vote. But the laws I am talking about are the forced integration of schools, rises in the minimum wage (or even having such a communist law to begin with), putting price ceilings on housing to help low income families, affirmative action programs, and the countless welfare programs that have caused a steady increase in the divorce rate, pregnancy out of wedlock, single-mom homes and a rise in crime. There are of course many other programs but I think you get the point.

These laws of course were put in to help poor but also minority groups in forms of reparations due to discrimination they dealt with throughout history. When one forces schools to integrate they impose costs on people who choose not to want to integrate. Longer drives could be one cost and the risk of fights amongst groups that hate one another. This is why I supported the desegregation of our schools but the forced integration is WORSE than forced segregation in my humble opinion. I would prefer freedom and the right to choose where to go to school instead.

The minimum wage helps workers who have jobs and get to keep them by raising their incomes considerably. But it hurts MORE people in that people lose jobs because it costs to much to keep them working and it keeps firms and businesses from hiring more new workers who are inexperienced and might not be worth the forced raise in pay. This effects mostly low skill workers and young workers. When combining those two attributes you see that it really hits minorities. This is why in Europe they have extremely high unemployment among young people and even higher among young Muslims in France and other minorities who might not have all the basic skills that the native person or majority ethnicity has been able to acquire growing up there. Funny how most of these people working minimum wage are young people still living with their parents and simply want a job to pay for a new car or something. But now they can't get that job even if they were willing to work for a lower price it would be against the law to hire him at that price.

Price ceilings on housing to keep the price of apartments low has caused 50% of the minority race (black) to move out of the city that most displays these liberal policies of compassion. That being the wonderful city of San Fransisco. When landlords have a maximum price they can charge on certain housing implemented by the government, profits will fall swiftly moving landlords out of the area and into another area where profits can be made. What you see is a supply problems of housing. Not a scarcity problem. Oh the houses and apartments exist, but they are now abandoned because a landlord can not make sufficient funds in that area. With the fall in the supply of housing what happens to the price of the remaining housing people? If you said the price rises then move up to the front of the class. Thus those hurt most by these policies are those who were suppose to be helped- low income and minority families. If you don't believe me look and see what cities have the highest housing costs. San Fransisco and New York city and other cities that have implemented these policies. Houston has not implemented them and that is why it is a good city for poor people and minorities to live. Hmm maybe the liberal politicians in San Fransisco knew this and pass these laws and other zoning laws such as keeping land off limits for "environmental" reasons. What does this do? it lowers the supply of land. What does that do? If you said raises the price of land then go to the front of the class as economist Walter Williams would say.

These well intended policies hurt those whom it is designed to help. That is why I like a free market to choose where to live and allow the people decide what is a fair price. If the owner is charging too much he will know that with people choosing not to buy. He will thus be forced to lower prices, unless of course there is no other place for those people to go due to bad government policies that have destroyed the housing in cities like the gay city of America. I could go on and on and explain how affirmative action has hurt Black families and business, how welfare and the safety nets for those who have made mistakes have incentivize people to live together who are not married and thus raising the teen pregnancy even more. Why do you think most single moms end up with multiple kids? But I think you get the point.

The next blog will cover why a free market works and fixes these problems and I'll also cite statistics that prove how discriminating in a free market costs lots of money and how the discrimination will thus decrease and even go away completely and how wages were growing for most Black people far quicker than for White people just after the Civil War. I hope you tune in.