wilbjammin

Our society is structured around unemployment. The Fed actually bases its entire economic policy around the reserve of employers. Full employment is considered bad economically by the Fed, because it creates competition for employees which creates upward pressure on wages (which will theorhetically cause businesses to lose money and ruin the economy). In any event, unemployment and a need for jobs in this system is a constant, and more of an imminent problem for people of historically impoverished groups than others. You might not be strapped for cash, but there are hundreds of thousands of people that will take a job that will get the bills paid if they could, even if the social climate isn't that great (or just bad). And truly, there are all kinds of harassment laws and unfair practice laws that are meant to protect employees from other employees and their employers. Boycotts are helpful when the law is failing, however, I don't think that is should be the #1 tool of choice for solving problems when we have laws that are meant to protect people. Boycotts typically hurt the economy and burn bridges rather than build bridges.

I think you're mischaracterizing Affirmative Action like most people do. Affirmative Action states that employers/schools are to take every <i>reasonable</i> action to level the playing field and to set <i>reasonable</i> <b>goals</b> for employment/enrollment of minorities. If goals aren't met and there is documentation that all reasonable efforts were made to meet those goals, then the chances of a case being filed against the school or business are very low. There are no quotas. For more information see Facts on Executive Order 11246 - Affirmative Action .

Additionally, it is very important to note that the vast wealth of the United States has been predicated on a system of exploitation. Previously, of course, the exploited class of people were African America slaves. After Reconstruction, if you know our history, freed slaves had so many barriers to economic success that their ability to rise up the economic ladder were ridiculously small. You can claim a sort of indignant stance that you only want to work for people that like you, but that does not create a social structure where enough of your people are employers to provide jobs that will give you enough money to live on. I think it is absolutely necessary to have laws and checks and balances to prevent and break down institutionalized racism and prejudice (women and homosexuals, for instance) to help create the society that best serves all of its citizens of all walks of life. Typically, the arguments against this, as I see them, are based on beliefs of people that are afraid of losing their privilige and think that laws that help level the playing field are allowing minorities to oppress the majority. And typically, this is not the case, and the exceptions where the laws didn't work perfectly get blown up in the media. Affirmative Action has had more successes than failures, which is better than a laissez-faire approach to employment/enrollment historically has had. This is not to say that Affirmative Action could use some reworkings, but it is better than nothing.

__________________
Innominate.