Do you agree?
Do you agree?
Last edited by Binky; 09-06-11 at 07:41 PM.
I'm not religious...so, I don't have a dog in this fight. I just want to see America be successful long term. The big difference between my views and the views of most other self described "atheists" is that I'm not down on those people who ARE religious.
Insurance companies do not discriminate based on race either. They could easily find statistics of drivers of different race and ethnicity and charge them different premiums based on such information. Why do they not do something like that? The fact is racial discrimination is looked upon much differently.My position is that they shouldn't feel differently and if they do feel differently I believe it's because they're used to the status quo. A 17 year old driver is being judged not on his driving record but on the driving record of his peer group. I'm ok with that because I believe companies should be able to do this but I still recognize that a price falls on the good and careful 17 year old driver.
As for the barbership restricting clientele only to white people, I say go for it. They should have the right to exercise their freedom of association and people can exercise their choice of whether to patronize the establishment or take their business to their competitor who doesn't discriminate. I don't think that that white barbershop would stay open for business for very long but I do think that they should have the freedom to form their own associations without associations being forced upon them. With freedom comes consequences.
That's why the barbershop would go out of business. Now, 60 years ago this would not have been the case in many places, why?
Ignoring what information? We need to be clear because we both agreed that stereotypes are most likely to be used when there is little information about the individual. We also agreed that this is more of a societal problem than one of individual employers. We can sit here and analyze all day what hire practices could be done to save money, to take advantage of poor hiring by others, etc, but at the end of the day the fact is that most of these hiring practices are being done already. The fact is that the way different societal institutions are set up place ethnic minorities, such as blacks, at a disadvantage in the labor market. One significant and identifiable one is stereotypes. We can see this fact by looking at the OP. Blacks have a significantly higher unemployment rate than whites. You have basically contended that this is because these stereotypes are reality, aka they are valid. I say that they may be valid but unreliable. I think that my opinion has more weight because we only use stereotypes if there is little other information, such as in the labor market. Due to the lack of information, this is clearly a problem in the labor market that cannot be fixed by individual employers or potential employees, otherwise we would not have black having persistently higher unemployment. Your argument that the market will work this out has no weight considering higher black unemployment has been the case for all of modern history.Some problems don't have easy solutions. I can't see how penalizing employers by holding them legally responsible for ignoring information which can save them money is a preferable outcome. Better to let the marketplace of ideas battle it out. Some employers and their human resources departments won't believe in the value of stereotypes. Good for them. They can hire people just as though there was a law forcing them to ignore stereotypes. They can now reap the gains or suffer the losses which result from making their choice of hiring strategy.
1. I do not regard multiculturalism as a cancer.
2. I am not saying the best qualified person should not get the job, I am just saying that the current system places some at a disadvantage.
3. A $10,000 tax credit is extreme.
4. Laws should prevent discrimination, not place incentives to hire specific groups of people.
5. I do not favor what is in that article.