Affirmative action leads to majorities being robbed of opportunities they rightfully deserve.

Your previous post as well as this post by me - is becoming a bit too long. Just to make it more manageable I am inserting numbers before each argument. 1. You dismissed the major part of my argument just by criticizing the expression 'Rich get richer and poor get poorer'. I was not using it as an economic fact. I was using it as shorthand for some arguments - which is very familiar to me. Since you object to it - and since I do not want to convert this into a debate about capitalism (partially because my own views lie somewhere in between) - I take the expression back. I will rather restate the argument directly. As I had observed the origin of the problem is historic. However because of that there is a current disparity in education (or qualification level). The assertion is that this is going to propagate to next generations. The reason is - In this generation Yarimjots end up with better jobs (in absence of affirmative action) as they are more qualified. Thus they have a better standard of living. They can afford better education for their children - who are also more aware about various opportunities. Because of same reasons the children of Yiriminots end up less educated, less aware and consequently less qualified in next generation also. 2. You said "Without affirmative action, Yirimnots would still eventually catch up with the Yarimjots; it would just take longer, and be safer for the economy. And as Thomas Jefferson said, "Delay is preferable to error." " And you are completely wrong! What is more - your mistake takes us to the heart of problem. As I have explained above – they will never catch up on their own. 3. You raised a relevant objection: "More hardworking? You make the assumption that it was a close finish. However, it was only close due to the fact that the standard deviations are so high" Yes, statistically speaking, more hardworking! Or at least equally hardworking! If we assume that Yiriminots are inherently as hardworking as Yarimjots, those particular Yiriminots have obtained higher percentile in their community compared to Yarimjots who were not selected. So it can be safely assumed that they are relatively more intelligent as well as hardworking. The lack of qualification is just due to circumstances. Unfortunately, your argument is valid in one very important case. That is - if 'Catino' is a top rated company - and thus the effective competition is only among the top percentile of population - who all have excellent educational background. I do not know if some mechanism exists in USA to address this. In India, an economic criterion is being proposed for excluding many people from reservations. 4. You have tried to talk about the plight of Yarimjots. "True, but Catino Industries is not the only company forced to practice affirmative action. The same Yarimjots could repeatedly suffer to the hands of affirmative action by watching every job they try to obtain get filled in by a less-qualified Yirimnot. Eventually, many Yarimjots end up with the jobs that Yirimnots were usually filling, so it ended up in Yarimjots taking poor-paying jobs that they are overqualified for, and Yirimnots taking high-paying jobs that they are under-qualified for. See the problem? ... " I don't see the problem. Rather - this is the way it should be. For a moment assume that it was an ideal world and Yiriminots were as educated and as aware as Yarimjots and no affirmative action was needed. You will immediately see that these Yarimjots would have (statistically speaking) obtained the same job - for which they are currently considering themselves overqualified! Similarly the Yiriminots would have really obtained the jobs for which you are currently calling them less qualified. In other words, they have got what they truly deserve! I guess I have covered all the main points. A quick look at some of the side issues: 5. You have argued that: "Competition is not the only problem. If every automobile-manufacturing company in a society suddenly switches their highly qualified workers with less qualified workers who lack experience in the field, competition will remain the same, but the output of every single company will decline. Instead of every company putting out 300 cars per day, they only put out 200 cars per day, which could end up with severe cuts in profit, and thus job cuts. It would also hurt consumers, as there would be a smaller supply of cars to buy. These numbers may be exaggerated, but the point remains the same: replacing a qualified workforce with one that is not will lead to a cut in output and profit, and a shortage of product for consumers." Let me just repeat. These figures are exaggerated. There will be marginal increase in cost. This cost might be absorbed by the industry or it may be passed on to consumers. It is unlikely to lead to - let us say - a recession! And again let me repeat - this extra expenditure is a direct investment in society's welfare and worth it. And let me repeat further - this is not relevant to this debate. 6. I do not know Mr. Thomas Sowell. But he strikes me as an interesting fellow. He claims that Americans in lowest 10-20 percent of earners are in a state of constant flux. I find this highly counter-intuitive. However since he has written a book which is at least 139 pages long - I assume he must have backed his claims with sufficient statistics. What I find even more amusing is your challenge: "If you disagree, point out a source that affirms that the poor get poorer, and I will find whatever statistical trick it uses to back up its fallacy. Or, of course, you can drop the argument here." I do not know what qualifications in statistics you have. Maybe you are the online avatar of Mr. Sowell! But this particular article looks quite simple. Happy hunting! http://www.nationalreview.com... 7. You have provided an interesting angle to the cost argument. "However, affirmative action still results in the executive (a Yarimjot) being deprived of the desired opportunity of hiring the most qualified applicants to work for them, so it is indeed relevant to the debate." To fit this logic into the debate - you have assumed that the executive is a Yarimjots! But the executive may be a Yiriminots! While I cannot deny the logic is valid (it is a restatement of the cost argument) - it may harm either Yarimjots or Yiriminots executive. So it is not relevant to the debate. 8. You said: "General outline: The Yiriminots lived rurally on an island, until the Yarimjots arrived with their advanced technology, civilization, and disease, which ended up in a mostly-Yarimjot upper class, and a disease-stricken Yirimnot lower class. " Sure. But I don't want to go into details. I am not interested in past that much (except to point out it is not fault of Yiriminots, if they are less qualified). I am more interested in present and future. However you can use this outline if you need it for your arguments. 9. I am lousy in solving anagrams :-(