if a company’s management is willing to give up profits to exercise a prejudice, then the discrimination is real
Company’s who are willing to exercise prejudice must give up profits. Whether it's not hiring cheaper black labor in the early 1900's or not hiring qualified female labor in the late 1900's, discrimination is costly. However, the higher rate of unemployment for African Americans or the lower pay of women do not necessarily mean discrimination is occurring. It many cases it may be that businesses are making choices based on prices and not prejudice.
I would say if a company's management is willing to exercise prejudice to gain profits, then discrimination is real as well. In fact, really I don't see what profits has to do with it. If a company is willing to exercise prejudice, then discrimination is real.
ReplyDeleteThis is precisely why race- and gender-based inequalities cannot be overcome by the market alone. Milton Friedman once said that if everybody thought like a capitalist, there would be no racism--which is absolutely true, but there would still be race-based social stratification and systemic barriers to African-American economic development, and this is why.
ReplyDeleteI just finished re-reading Iris Marion Young's "Justice and the Politics of Difference" for my class, and she makes a point that's really applicable here: oppression is institutional and systemic, not necessarily one-on-one...which means that there can still be oppressION in a society, even if there's no oppressOR.
(She concludes that book, btw, with a plea for discrimination: in order to overcome those inequalities--which prevent an otherwise free society from reaching the meritocratic ideal--it's necessary to make choices based on prejudice and not price.)
ReplyDeleteJustin,
ReplyDeleteDid you mean to say isn't? I'll just assume you're disagreeing. The reason I think a loss of profits is a good measure is because that's how you know the company isn't just responding to market forces. And like Amike said, if everyone was a pure capitalist, there would be no racism.
For example, paying a short person less isn't discrimination if being tall is important for the job. So if someone does want to discriminate against short people, they'll have to lose profits.
Amike,
ReplyDeleteI think this shows that the free market will help to correct race-gender inequalities because of the lost of profit. Of course it won't completely overcome it, but so far neither has government.
I meant to say it is, and I'm disagreeing.
ReplyDelete"If everyone was a pure capitalist, there would be no racism" may be true, but it's also pointless. If we were all robots, there would be no racism. If we were all plants, there would be no racism. This isn't anything to pin on capitalism's chest.
Discriminating against short people because they are not equipped to do a job as well as tall people is very different from discriminating against black people because customers prefer white people. Surely you understand this.
How can a company exercise discrimination to gain more profits?
ReplyDeleteI believe the comment was just to say that discrimination is a problem of culture, not capitalism, which we all agree with.
I agree discrimination against short people is different because our country doesn't have centuries of baggage about it. But in theory it's the same idea. I was only using it as an example to show how discrimination hurts profits.
Thousands of companies exercised discrimination to gain profits before 1964, when a majority of their customers would not shop anywhere that let black people hold certain jobs. This still happens today, in this way and many other ways.
ReplyDeleteIn theory and practice it is NOT the same idea. We fundamentally disagree on this. I'm out.
It is probably true that in the 1960's there was profit to made by discriminating how your racist customers wanted you to, but in 2010 I doubt that is really much of an issue in America.
ReplyDeleteMy main thesis is this: a great way to tell if a company is being discriminatory (race, gender, nationality) is to see if they are losing profits. If they aren't, then it's likely they aren't hiring/selling because of other issues (less educated, less skilled, or have a criminal record).
Let me clarify. I do not think racial and height discrimination are the same. I was only trying to move from race (which has been a very divisive issue in American history) to height.
ReplyDeleteI also admit that for companies to be properly punished there needs to be perfect competition, which of course only exists in the NYC pizza market.
And finally, I do admit that MLK and Civil Rights movement played an important role in changing America for the better. What frustrates me is for politicians to respond to the greater swell of support for equal rights by passing laws and then taking credit for the initial swell.
And finally, ending discrimination in public places is definitely the role of government. When you take the next step into private business owners, I'm less sure the benefits outweigh the costs.
Well said.
ReplyDelete