How To Win The Black Vote

Due to writing blogs that have to be divided into two, three, and even four part series', I have to put off writing about other issues that are relevant at a particular time. This is one of those cases. It was not too long ago that John McCain spoke to the NAACP. The NAACP and other civil rights organizations are anti-Republican to say the least. George Bush did not speak to them until years after his presidency because of the disrespect that group shows him. John McCain was shown the same respect as some protested by reading the newspaper much like I did in my high school days when the opposing basketball teams starting lineup was being announced in the Oliver Springs gymnasium. So how should a conservative (which McCain is not) really go after the Black vote?

First, do not try to suck up to them, apologize to them, bring up history of racism to them, etc. That has been done and no one is better at the liberal approach then Democrats are. So even if McCain is the most popular Republican to the NAACP and the Black population, he will still not get their vote over Obama. I would go after that small percentage of black voters who have not been convinced of their "Victimization" standing in America. Conservatives must take a different approach, an approach that might only win 20-25% of the vote this year but is still more the 10-15% they usually receive. So how do we do this?

Go after Democrats on their support for teacher unions and their hatred of school choice. There is no group in America that is hurt more by our communist style education system we have in this country then the inner city black kid. NO ONE! Look into the camera and tell every inner-city poor black family that I will work to get school vouchers to you so that you can take your child to any school of your choice. That voucher will be worth the current amount spent per child to a typical public school in that area. That amount will now follow that child to any school of your choice including private schools. If you can not afford to send your children to the area private school well take this $8,000 dollar voucher and all you have to do is pay the rest. Currently you pay large sums of taxes and then watch that money wasted on a failing government school. I want to empower you not the teacher unions.

Then tell those same black families that you will clean up their community. Are we going to do that by sending money and more resources to rebuild broken homes and businesses that have moved out of the area? No we are not. I as President will appoint judges that will prosecute criminals to the fullest extent. Lawyers will no longer be able to free their clients from prison sentences that punish violent behavior. I will appoint judges that will not allow child predators out of prison after only a few years. Your communities will be cleaned up because the criminals that tear your city down will now be thrown in jail for maximum years! Your children will be safe from drug dealers and rapist for now on! Vote for me and I promise to take the resources currently spent on long drawn out court cases and appeals and instead spend it on more prisons and guards to keep criminals off your streets.

Finally I will explain how liberal policies that are suppose to be well intentioned have destroyed the black community. These policies include the minimum wage law that keeps your young kid from being able to get a job because companies tend not to hire them if it cost so much to do so. I will promote less regulation on building and housing costs that liberal cities such as San Fransisco have passed that have resulted in rising housing costs due to lower supple and a departure of over half the black community from those cities. I will lower taxes on corporations and small businesses so that they will invest more money into more jobs and more opportunities that will benefit all low wage workers in every part of the country.

I'm tired of seeing liberal Republicans worry about trying to make all Black people happy like Democrats have. I want them to go after the 25% of the black vote that have been waiting on a politician that will pass laws and enforce laws that will make them smarter and safer. Eventually that 25% will grow. The good news is that 25% will win the election this year and continue winning those elections in years to come.

Political Solutions for Political Problems Part II

Thomas Sowell starts his latest article with: "We don't look to arsonists to help put out fires but we do look to politicians to help solve financial crises that they played a major role in creating. " I can get frustrated when I hear family members, friends, or strangers talk about which candidate for president will do the best in solving the problems our county has. They wish they would fix the housing crisis, the financial institutions mess, our airlines, gas prices, and I could go on and on. Most of us who study history and economics and have principles which foundations are built around the ideas freedom, private property rights, and federalism, would rather have a politician stand up and say "When elected I promise to take government out of the business of regulation and interference in the free market. I promise that when a slow down in our economy comes about that I will do NOTHING other than look for other ways to keep us in Washington from screwing everything up!"

In addition to government passing laws that incentivize and in fact force banks to make loans to people and in places they otherwise would not, local governments pass other laws that artificially raise the cost of housing. When a local government puts price ceilings on apartment rentals the amount of housing built in those areas goes down with landlords moving into other areas around the country where they can actually make money. In addition to that, current apartments are no longer maintained and thus are abandoned. All this lowers the supply of housing and thus what happens to the price? If you said it goes up then go to the front of the class. This is why housing is so much more expensive in cities like San Fransisco and New York. When citizens want to buy a house they must get a loan that is larger than they would if such regulations and restrictions were not around which would lead to more building and a lowering of prices. This adds to the housing bubble which bursts as interest rates go back up.

The Federal Reserve kept interest rates so long for so long that many people got loans at very low rates that adjust as the Fed raises their rates. This effects poor people who have to get adjustable-rate mortgages. When the rates go back up on those people who have gotten loans only due to the fact that government forces financial institutions to loan to them, payments increase. This is the "sub-prime" loans we hear about in the news. In areas around the country like in California where a half-million dollar house is the norm, a 4% interest being raised to 6% would mean a rise in about $7,000 a year in mortgage payments.

In a true free market people on the bubble of affording housing would choose to save more while living in a rental apartment that does not cost as much now due to a rise in supply with no regulations on price and zoning laws being greatly reduced. Furthermore without political pressure in Washington the interest rates would not be kept so artificially low for so long. Interest rates being too low incentivizes people to get loans many of whom should not. Interest rates being low also causes the value of the dollar to fall. This eventually leads to an increase in inflation which the Fed must get under control by raising the interest rates back up. This would eliminate most of the huge ups and downs in the economy. More and more economist now blame the New Deal policies for making the Great Depression worse and last longer. In 1987 the stock market crash was just as bad if not worse according to economist Sowell. This time Reagan did nothing. This was not well received by the mainsteam media and many other politicians. All that happened was 20 straight years of huge economic growth, low inflation and very low unemployment rates.

I hope these last two blogs will help you readers realize the beauty of the free market and how politicians cause the problems that they now promise to fix. When I vote I have to vote for the candidate that promises to interfere less than the other. I would love to have a candidate that would never interfere but I know I live in the real world where these facts mean little to politicians trying to get votes.

Political Solutions for Political Problems

There is very little if anything that angers me more than to see an American citizen get excited to see a politician make a speech about how they are going to fix the problems of our nation. Problems that those knuckle headed politicians caused or was a big part of in the first place! In the next couple posts I will talk to you about the current financial crisis that politicians blame non-regulated predatory lenders for causing. In addition we will look at a couple other examples of politicians wanting to fix problems they caused to begin with.

Politicians love to take advantage of the weak brain of so many American Citizens. Politicians tell us that lending companies who participated in "lucrative" lending practices are some how villains for taking advantage of everyday Americans. Today these "lucrative" companies are now losing millions and some billions of dollars while others are going out of business! Pray tell me how it makes sense to say that a company is going to take advantage of individuals in the loaning business when they know that if those individuals can not make their payments that those lenders too will be hurt just as bad or worse and go out of business? Only a liberal moron would think that is possible.

As Thomas Sowell has recently written about in his recent column that is published in hundreds of magazines and newspapers nationwide, it was not too long ago that there was outrage in Washington and other political capitals over "redlining." This is the practice of banks and financial institutions not lending or approving mortgages in some neighborhoods. Black neighborhoods in particular were questioned. It is true that while 89% of white mortgages were being approved only 72% of black mortgages were being approved. Due to this there was a campaign to get lenders to lend to people that in a true free market, would not be given loans. It is common sense for individuals to only lend in some areas and not in other areas where it is dangerous or there is great risk in not getting that loan back. If politicians want to call that "redlining" then so be it. That does not negate the fact that it is common sense to behave that way.

As far as racial differences it might be good to step back and study whether black and white is the real reason for not receiving loans. Income, credit history, and net worth are three of the prime factors in determining whether a person gets a loan or not. If different groups of people or ethnicity of people are different in those prime categories, there could be great disparities in regards to loan approvals that have NOTHING to do with whether their skin is dark or white. In fact Whites must settle for sub prime loans more often than do Asians. Whites are in fact turned down for conventional mortgage loans more often than Asians. Is this due to racism you think? Funny how the news media never covers these differences but only those of White and Black differences. These prime factors mean a lot to business owners trying to make profits but matter very little to politicians trying to get VOTES.

These laws and regulations that politicians have put on lending institutions have caused the current problem we see today in our financial markets. The Community Reinvestment Act forced many of them to lend in places where they did not want to send their money. This is because the cost of doing business in neighborhoods where neither they nor the politicians wanted to WALK much less start a business would be so high that profits would vanish. Companies are also less likely to want to lend to people they feel will not have the resources to pay in full for the loan they give them. But government has a way of pressuring companies to do just that and this Community Reinvestment Act was only one of the laws that did this.

Other laws and pressures as well as incentives cause lending institutions to lend to people who they otherwise would choose not to lend to in a true free market. In part II of this blog I will explain the economics of this and how it has caused the current problems we have today. We will also examine a couple other political solutions that have caused these same types of problems in the past and continue even today.

Why Women Make Less- Conclusion

As I continue the fallacy of income differences between males and females I want to reiterate the purpose of these recent blog entries. My goal is to explain that while humans are not perfect and discrimination is apparent in some cases, most of what politicians, mainstream media types, and those of the intelligentsia world call "discrimination" is not discrimination at all. It is easy for a third party(media, politician, college professor, etc..) to denounce American businesses of showing discrimination to women and minorities. But when the economics which is based on cost benefit analysis and not based on the ideology of a third party, different conclusions can be made.

When people get married, money becomes a bigger priority. One must buy clothing, shelter, food, and other necessities for a family not just themselves. Due to this, married men work more than single men. Thus marriage has had an effect on the income gap between men and women. After marriage, men make more than they did when they were single, and more than other still single men do because of the higher number of hours worked and more full-time employment. Furthermore, when getting married, women make less as they spend less time working a professional job and more time caring for the home. Women who have never been married have higher incomes than women who have, and women with no children have higher incomes than women with children according to economist Thomas Sowell.

Lets conclude this study by looking at male versus female statistics while taking into consideration the characteristics such as education, domestic responsibilities, job choice, job experience, and skill differences of the two people. A study in Britain found that women as a group earn 17 percent less per hour than men when both work full-time. However the same study found that women made different choices throughout life. Young women incomes were 91% of British men, but British mothers were just 67% of men who were fathers. The University of Michigan Law School found that the gap between men and women pay is relatively small at the start of their careers. But 15 years later, women only earned 60% of what men made. Another study found that the gender pay gap is 5 percent for part time workers 21-35, and under 3 percent for full time workers of the same age without children. There is NO GAP between those ages of people male or female who live alone. In 1969, academic women who had never been married, earned MORE than academic men who had never been married. Married women earned a little less, while married women with children earned even further less. In 1971 women working continuously since high school were earning slightly more than men under the same description. This was before affirmative action by the way.

Some statistics can be misleading. In 1990 young male physicians earned 41 percent more than young female physicians. However after adjusting for specialty, practice setting, and other characteristics, no earning difference was evident. More men went into higher specialty physician practices. In fact the study found that young male physicians also worked over 500 hours more than female physicians per year. In 1999 women's hourly earnings were 83.8 percent of women in the same year. But comparing women and men who were comparable in occupation, industry, and other variables, the per-hour difference is only 6.2 percent. Industrial and Labor Relations Review found that only 2.4 percent of top-level management positions were filled by women. The pay was 45% less than men as well. The reason for the compensation gap was that women were more likely to be executives in smaller corporations where pay was less. Women have less experience and therefore usually were managers in smaller corporations. Taking these differences and other male-female comparisons, the study only found a 5% gap between male and female pay when all observable differences are taken in account.

Statistics you get from third parties that have an agenda do not like to take all these concerns into consideration. Employers of corporations have to take those differences into account. Economics usually paints a different picture for us than does ideology of an agenda driven person. I hope in the future when you hear how Americans discriminate against foreigners, minorities, and women, there might be a reason. And if you have a problem with those differences you have to take that up with God who decided that women should be the ones that give birth not men.

Why Women Make Less Part 3

I want to make it clear from the beginning, in no way shape form or fashion do I have the belief that no where are women discriminated against in the work place. With my years of studying history I know that women in our culture originally cooked, reared children and performed other domestic responsibilities. There is no doubt that there are radical men out there who every time they see a woman working beside them wish she was still home doing that. No doubt there are bosses and CEOs that are the same way. My point is simple. There is not NEAR the amount of discrimination that most people believe. And, much "discrimination" is not based on sexism but based on the idea that with women and men being different physically in more way than are possible to write about in this blog, men are preferred for some jobs over women. And men prefer some jobs more often than women as we will soon see.

3.) Working hours: Little doubt that women are busier than men in domestic chores. Women are responsible for birth, and in most households cook, clean, and most importantly raise the children. There are families where these roles are switched today but most by far are still men spending more time than women on their professional career and women spending more time on the domestic responsibilities than men. The fact is that many women today are studying law. I think this is a good thing. Lawyers make good money but some make more than others. Women who want to be attorneys tend to be a civil service attorney with regular hours. Whereas more men will work for the high-pressure law firm where week hours could average between 60-70 hours a week and at unpredictable times depending on the client's case. Some large firms are stationed in several cities. If you are a high price well qualified experienced lawyer, a client might choose to have you fly in to defend him. This flying off to some distant place could be asked on short notice with unknown lengths of stay. Men are more likely to do this work than women due to their domestic responsibilities. This could hurts women who are single in that men might look at those women and put them in the general category of women when in fact they are trying to make a career for themselves. We will show later where evidence shows this mindset does not effect women's pay in fact. With most women getting married and having children the Harvard Business Review survey might be of importance. A survey of the people in top 6 percent of earnings showed that 62 percent worked more than 50 hours a week and 35 percent worked more than 60 hours. Of those jobs that were considered "extreme" meaning high in hours and stress, less than 1/5 were women. Even more surprising was that of the people who held these extreme jobs, women were only half as likely to want to still be working this job 5 years down the road. This means that "The Economist" magazine is right in that "The main reason why women still get paid less on average than men is not that they are paid less for the same jobs but that they tend not to climb so far up the career ladder, or they choose lower-paid occupations, such as nursing and teaching. In fact these are the jobs in which women with college degrees earn as much as men: computer engineer, petroleum engineer, other engineering occupations, journalist, portfolio managers, and medical technologies. But in most of these jobs, there are far FEWER women than men. Thus women make less not due to being paid less to do the same thing, but because there are fewer women than men doing the high paying jobs.

"Among college-educated, never married individuals with no children who work full-time and were from 40 to 64 years old- that is, beyond the child-bearing years- men average $40,000 a year in income while women average $47,000." This is according to Thomas Sowell and the University of Chicago. According to the New York Times, Of Yale alumni in their forties, only 56 percent of women still worked and 90 percent of men did. In a 2001 survey by Harvard Business School graduates, 31% of women from the classes of 1981, 85, and 91, worked only part time or on contract, and another 31% did not work at all.

Those who want to reach the highest echelons in their profession had better work not only long hours but continuously throughout their long career to reach those heights. Thomas Sowell writes "while those women are the best judges of what suits their own individual circumstances, priorities, and sense of well-being, third parties looking at statistical date see only the artifacts of disparities based on paychecks." The point is that statistics of paychecks can show disparities that when looking at life-style, choices, and other statistics, those disparities are understandable.

Why Women Make Less Part 2

After explaining the insanity of a CEO to not hire a woman if she can be just as productive as the man and do it for less pay I decided to investigate whether women really do make less than men. I have found that to be true. However are there economic reasons? Or are the mainstream media types, the intelligentsia, and politicians right to blame discrimination due to sexism?

Today lets look at some facts that back up the reasons women make less than men.

1.) Occupational Differences: Men work jobs that women do not work either because of physical inability or the unwillingness to participate. Some jobs are predominantly done by males. Many employers will choose not to hire those few women who are capable or willing to work that kind of labor because it could cause a distraction to the primary working male. Employers do not want to deal with this especially if it is single males working there. This has nothing to do with sexism or discrimination. This means although a female might be just as good at a job, if the distraction affects overall production by the workforce, the employer might choose to hire a male over the female. This has nothing to do with discrimination based on sexism. The same can be said in female dominated employment places as well.

According to the U.S. Census Bureau, women have been 74 percent of the "clerical and kindred workers" while women are less than 5 percent of "transport equipment operatives." In other words they are far more likely to be behind a desk than behind the steering wheel of an eighteen-wheel truck. Women are less than 4% of construction workers, less than 2 percent of roofers and less than 1 percent of mechanics and technicians who serve heavy vehicles and mobile equipment. There are economic implications for men working heavy physical work as well as hazardous work which requires physical work. Keep in mind, 54 percent of the labor force are men, while they are also 92 percent of the job-related deaths. Risks require more pay.

2.) Continuity of Employment: Facts make it appear that women will avoid occupations requiring more physical strength but they also make career choices influenced by the likelihood they will soon or at some point become mothers. Since motherhood requires a period of withdrawal from the full-time work outside the home, the cost of that withdrawal is a factor in occupation choices. When withdrawal from the workforce means a loss of seniority, and reduces the chances of being promoted, such an occupation imposes costs on women that are not likely to be imposed on a man. Even when men and women are the same age and have the "same work experience" in number of years, that employment being interrupted by domestic responsibilities of women such as birth giving, in reality means they have much less experience than the male. Even when women have not given birth or are not mothers, the prospect of that happening in the future has to be taken into account by the boss or CEO of a company that plan on promoting someone to a higher position. Men do not have to deal with this disadvantage. This is especially relevant to a high paying position at corporate that would mean much higher "leave" pay. Would you like to pay a high ranking corporate executive thousands and maybe millions of dollars if there was a good chance that she will be out for weeks due to the natural responsibilities of a woman in society? What if that pregnancy took place at a time when top decisions need to be made for a company or corporation?

This also affects occupations today in which skill requirements are changing rapidly. Jobs that deal with computer technology such as computer engineers and programmers. What about accountants and other positions that require constant changes in tax codes, etc. It has been estimated that a physicist loses half the value of his or her knowledge in that field in four years. Whereas a professor or teacher of English would take more than 25 years. This is why more women become teachers than physicist. Women are thus more likely to work in fields such as teachers or librarians rather than as computer engineers or tax accountants. Even with the proportion of women receiving Ph.D.s rose dramatically since the 1970s, male-female differences in fields of specialization remain large. As of 2005, according to Thomas Sowell and the University of Chicago, women receive 60 percent of the doctorates in education but less than 20 percent of the doctorates in engineering.

In the next post I will discuss irregular work, domestic responsibilities and compare some statistics. We will also see that while as a whole women make less than men, when you break the groups into characteristics of job skills and compare singles who have never been married, you will see that the gap closes dramatically and might be surprised with the numbers.

Why Women Make Less

Alert: If you are a sensative women on feminist issues you might not want to read this! This will prove much of what you think is true of this country and economy to be wrong! Most everyone in the United States thinks that women make less than men. Those who think that.... are right. But for politicians, intelligentsia members (professors, teachers, college administrators), and the media to blame discrimination is something that must be researched more. Most people believe women are discriminated against in the work place. In fact Presidential candidate Barack Obama has said that he will work to help women get jobs, raise their pay, and help them get more paid leave(maternity leave, etc) as president. Lets evaluate this idea that women are discriminated against in the work place.

Before looking at statistics and the economics of women versus men pay, lets look at a reality question. If you are the CEO of a company and you are trying to make your stockholders happy and trying to make as much money as possible, would you not do anything you could do to keep cost down? So if these companies are so "greedy" and only care about the bottom line, do you not think they would hire a woman if the company could pay her less than a man who did the same thing? It would be the only thing that makes sense. I would think that common sense would say that either women do make the same as men (which is not true), OR there are a good economic reasons for them making less.

Throughout history women's role in society has changed dramatically. For years women's role was to give birth, raise children, help with the harvest, keep the house together, and cook. This was not something that men forced on them. This is what was the norm of society. Today in the United States according to "The Economist" magazine 150 women for every 100 men attend college. But this is a recent transformation and thus would would not have an immediate effect on incomes. So lets agree that things have changed but it does take time for these changes to effect the overall economy.

Child-bearing is a huge physical difference between men and women. With women having babies, and completing other domestic responsibilities, they do not work continuously or full-time for that matter. This especially hurts high levels of achievement in the career. In fact in most high paying areas of work, the mean age at which peak accomplishment occurs and intense effort towards mastering the discipline is the age of 40. This is the years that many women bear children or are raising young children. In fact during the early decades of the 20th century, women did attend higher level occupations and get more postgraduate education. Women's pay was also closer to that of men. The reason for this was that the median age of marriage was later in the beginning of the century and thus women had already started on their career before marriage and child-bearing. As the median age of marriage declined, so did the representation of women in high-level occupations and in postgraduate degree programs.

Other issues include participation in the labor force. In 1950 94 percent of men were in the labor force while only 33 percent of women were. This was due to lower median ages of marriage, higher standards of living with the man's job only, and child-bearing. Remember this was in the later years of the baby boom births. This is a gap of 61 percent which narrowed to 45 percent by 1970 and in fact is now around a 12 percent gap. The trend has changed and it is not due to anti-discriminatory laws or a lowering of discrimination intself, simply changes in behavior of society.

In the next post I will discuss many more reasons for men making more than women. This will include experience, types of jobs, what kind of education do women get in college compared to men? We will also discuss the hours worked a week by men and women and how these hours change in opposite directions after marriage. We will also discuss the ideas of Barack Obama and how is goal to get government involved with raising women's pay and paid leave will in fact hurt women's chances of getting a job to begin with. Women beware! Sadly enough the majority of women, out of ignorance of economics (men are also ignorant of economics), will vote for the man that will drive their pay and work opportunities down.

Anti-Discriminatory Laws that Discriminate- Conclusion

In a free market it is almost impossible to discriminate against without accruing losses. I believe a private business owner has every right to discriminate against people on bases of sex, race, looks, and any other reason you can think of to discriminate. Why do I support this? Because the business owner that discriminates will be out of business quicker than Joey Chestnut can down 59 hot dogs.

In past posts I have covered ways that government intends to rid our nation of discrimination but in such efforts actually screw everything up. Today I would like to explain why in a "true" free market, it cost to discriminate. I did not say that all discrimination will be gotten rid of (we are human and not perfect). However, a free market is the best way to put cost on people who do discriminate. Throughout the history of the world many people such as the Jews and the Chinese have been discriminated against and forced out of the country by government laws and restrictions that allowed the discrimination to be protected for political gain. And then miraculously years later the Politicians see how important these people were to society and relent and let them back in and in fact entice them to come back because society does not function as well without them. This is what happens in free markets.

The reason this happens is that "political systems give expression to beliefs, often at negligible cost, while economic systems are constrained by the hard realities and thus impost substantial costs for being wrong and confer substantial benefits for being right" according to Thomas Sowell. Japanese immigrants in the U.S. in the early twentieth century were initially paid less that white workers doing the same work in agricultural. They were being discriminated against. In reality the Japanese workers were harder workers and were considered a better investment for employers. Once this was noticed the gap not only closed but the Japanese were actually paid more. Why? Because free markets do not depend upon the goodwill of those making the transactions. They will usually act in accordance to what benefits them the most. No NBA owner would draft a white player over a black player because he is racist when the black player is obviously better. If he did his team would always lose, he would lose fans, and he would lose money. He had better buy a hockey team instead!

Look at this best example. Does anyone think that there were racist right after the Civil War? Uhhh Yah!! After the war white SOUTHERN employers and landowners tried to band together to keep black laborers pay down. This was in fact perfectly legal at the time (as it should be today). These plans were even written about in the southern press. It was not a secret, they were former slaves for crying out loud! Lets look at the facts: blacks were illiterate, inexperienced, unorganized, and the law had no concern for their rights. The white employers had every advantage. Yet black income rose at a higher rate than white income in the generation after the Civil War. Illiterate workers, unable to count money, knew when friends and relatives were living better on the same pay. White employers and landowner who paid more and had better working and living conditions found themselves with a large supply of black applicants. This gave them more options and could hire the best of all black workers. Those employers attempting to take full advantage of these black workers found themselves having great trouble getting people to work for them. These former slaves were still paid less than white workers. That is until they had gained experience and with the natural tendency to work hard that was built in them during slavery, their rates actually continued to grow faster than whites. This ended only when white populist radical politicians led movements against banks and corporations sympathetic to blacks who worked hard and were paid high rates. If the Constitution is protected and thus the government could not discriminate and create laws that discriminated, the free market with competition would have continued to work.

The fact is that in a free market you can, if you choose, not hire black workers as an employer, but you are at a disadvantage if the other owners hire workers who are black and better workers. If politicians would worry about protecting our rights in a free market without laws that discriminate as we had years ago, or laws today that try to right all the past wrongs, then people would learn why today on average black workers make less than whites on average. More blacks get jobs earlier in life without acquiring human capital like education and higher skill work experience. Many are single fathers with kids living with mothers and thus do not work as many hours without a family to raise. And most who do go to college study subjects that are easier and are less paying jobs such as education. When you compare "descriptions" of workers such as age, education, type of education, experience, marital situation and other specifics, you will see that there is little if any discrimination going on. In fact, in 1980 a married black couple with a college education made more on average than the same description of a white couple.

Lets focus on economics which deals with the reality that decisions have costs. If we do this and not have politicians get involved, the people who discriminate will pay for it, not the innocent person who have to deal with stupid government policies that redistribute the costs to people who do not choose to discriminate and in many cases are the ones already being discriminated against.

On This Independence Day

As the evening ends and the night rolls in the 4th of July celebration is coming to an end. Most of us were off work as we should be on one of the two most important events in our great nation's history. The other day taking place in 1787 when our founders finalized our Constitution in its original form.

I wonder how many people have ever read the complete Declaration of Independence from Britain? I wonder how many people can quote more than the first line of the second paragraph of the declaration? I wonder how many people know that taxes was only mentioned once in the declaration despite most junior high kids saying we went to war because of "taxation without representation"? I wonder how many people know that God was referenced in the first two paragraphs and the final paragraph of the declaration (most believe the most imporatant part of any formal letter or document)?I wonder how many people know the events that lead up to the declaration? I wonder how many people know what the majority of the declaration says? I wonder how many people know that it is a list of grievances that the colonist had with the king? I wonder how many people know that each of the signers were considered traitors in Britain and if captured could have been hung? I wonder how many know that although none were hung that 17 served in the army, that 5 were captured, and that one of the signers, Richard Stockton, was captured and tortured and held in captivity until death? I wonder how many people really care?

Today as we complain about high gas prices, the stock market falling, war in the Middle East, Some jobs being lost, housing prices falling, and politicians doing nothing other than messing everything up in congress, allow us to just for one day of the year remember that we live in the greatest nation ever and that during our worst of times, we are better off than 99% of the world in their BEST of times!

Recommendations

My blog is designed to inform, educate, and explain issues that I think and read about. Much like a newspaper article. Most blogs are there to relate and describe a feeling or thought someone has. In addition to the desires of my blog, my writing ability is sub-par. I'm asking you to comment on whether you think my blogs are too long? Should I split them up into even more parts? My writing just needs to improve to get to the point? Or ok the way they are. I would like for you to comment what you think. I have some friends from Chattanooga who do not follow issues like I do nor do they read very much and have mentioned that it is hard for them to sit down and read one of my blog entries in one sitting or stay focused for that long. I would like to hear your comments.

Anti-Discriminatory Laws that Discriminate Part 2

In the second post for this blog I would like continue explaining why government anti-discrimination laws do not work but in fact make the situation worse for minority groups or those groups who the government thinks is being discriminated against. I had planned on making this a two post blog but with additional reading and studying over the last week I have come across more evidence from Thomas Sowell's "The Economics and Politics of Race." Sowell is a well known expert on economics and race issues and has been a college professor for years and is now a Senior Fellow at the Hoover Institute.

Politicians love to pass laws during positive "trends" and then take credit for that trend some years later. Case in point with the Civil Rights Act of 1964. I told you I agree with amendments that rid our government of political discrimination. But laws that seek to punish private discrimination or make up to those who have been discriminated against in the past have become dismal failures. After the Civil Rights Act was passed a growing number of Blacks, Puerto Ricans, and Mexican Americans were entering higher paying occupations than ever before. But was it due to this law? At the same time more Mexican Americans were completing high school and college enrollment had already doubled for Black Americans before the law. Many Asians had already overtaken whites in years of schooling themselves. Many minorities were becoming becoming better at the English language and a reduction of violence was common in areas highly populated by many minority groups. Could these have not been the most significant reasons for the rise in employment and income? But politicians like taking full credit for the improvements of employment and income rises of minorities after this law passed. Blacks entering higher paying jobs grew after the passing of the Civil Rights Act. But the number of blacks in "professional, technical and similar high level occupations more than DOUBLED between 1954 and 1964" according to Thomas Sowell. This was the decade BEFORE the law was passed. This trend continued after the passage of this law not because of this law.

I agree that political action was needed to end the discriminatory practices of federal, state and local governments. We do live in a free society where all men are equal after all. These laws prohibiting government discrimination increased the number of black officials nearly eight-fold from 1964-1975. That is a good thing. But attempts to lessen private people's discrimination only worsened the problem. Affirmative action led to a lowering of Puerto Rican family income from 63 percent of the national average to just 50 percent 5 years later. Black income fluctuated and Mexican Americans' declined slightly as well.

Affirmative action helped those Black males who were already fortunate. Black Males' income with college completed and more than 6 years of work experience rose from 75% of white income to 98 percent. In fact college educated black couples earned more than college educated white couples as of 1980. The reason the national average is so far off for Blacks before affirmative action is due to other issues like teenage pregnancy, low education, divorce rate, violence and other issues not just discrimination. With these issues on the decline the gaps would have closed even without affirmative action. Fortunate minorities were not hurt by this law however, Black males with only 8 to 11 years of schooling and and less than 6 years of work experience had their income drop from 79-69% of the same described white males. This is because affirmative action increased the demand for "safe" black employees but DECREASED it for new and uneducated black employees due to the "scrutiny of their subsequent pay, promotion [requirements], discharge patterns (being allowed to fire them), and other issues that made it risky to employ groups that routinely did not work out well for the employer. Due to these risks, less fortunate minorities were hurt by affirmative action while already fortunate minorities were helped. This sounds a lot like the minimum wage laws effect. Overall this law hurts blacks and other minority groups.

The purpose of these posts are to show you that politicians love to pass laws that force our private sector to take certain actions that cause unintended consequences.
I think it is immoral and unconstitutional for the federal government to pass laws that keep Private sector employers from discriminating even if they wanted to. It is their choice. In the next post I will explain why private individuals could discriminate in the past and get away with it without a loss in income and why in a pure free market why it would be impossible to discriminate without it costing you.