5 ms·

I don't really get the airliner's reasoning. They say they're redistributing the weight, but if on this flight, most people are Samoan anyways, shouldn't the we

by rtpg 10y ago

I don't really get the airliner's reasoning. They say they're redistributing the weight, but if on this flight, most people are Samoan anyways, shouldn't the weight distribution be the same as other flights (since it's the same population)? It's a bit confusing.... You cannot talk about discrimination without also talking about disparate impact[0]: Policies which, while not being of discriminatory origins, end up disproportionately hitting a certain class of people. This happened a lot in housing policy. decades of racist housing and bank policymeans that blacks end up being "stuck" in low-income housing, even when black families in fact make a lot of money[1]. So now if you make any policy based around the land value of housing in many urban areas, this policy ends up disproportionately affecting blacks. Similarly, because of this, ghettos are formed, so any policy based on geography (school funding is a big one) also ends up disproportionately affecting blacks. You might think it's unfair to claim an action is discriminatory when the motives are not so. But the alternative is to not acknowledge who these policies actually affect. If the effects of an action are discriminatory, does it matter whether the motives were such? At least in the context of removing discrimination? [0]:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disparate_impact https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disparate_impact [1]: "on average, whites earning only $30,000 live in better neighborhoods than blacks earning $100,000" https://jdodgeblog.wordpress.com/2014/05/28/on-coates-and-neighborhood-disadvantage/ https://jdodgeblog.wordpress.com/2014/05/28/on-coates-and-ne...

gragas 10y ago
It is not and should not be the duty of anyone to mitigate disparate impact. It is, by definition, not the fault of the "accidentally discriminatory party".
- rtpg 10y ago
  The Civil Rights Act outlines protected classes from discrimination. I don't really see the argument against the government taking action against disparate impact in such situations. After all, the point of the CRA is to remove discriminatory situations. Much like a firefighter trying to stop a fire, whether intent is there is beside the point. The objective is to fix the problem. Though I don't really know whether what's mentioned in the article is really a case warranting action. The harm applied here seems pretty minor (no assigned seating).
  - gragas 10y ago
    By your argument, no analysis should ever be applied to any decision involving humans because that has disparate impact. Car insurance companies should only charge one rate, because otherwise they're discriminating against teenagers and men. Health insurance companies should only charge one rate, otherwise they are discriminating against smokers. Life insurance companies should charge one rate, otherwise they discriminate against men. Annuities should all have the same payouts, otherwise they discriminate against women for the mere fact that they live longer on average. Really, I understand your sentiment, but government mandate is not the solution.
    - rtpg 10y ago
      Have you thought that maybe this is an argument against private insurance? Why should life insurance be necessary, instead of proper safety nets provided to all by he government. Why shouldn't car insurance be somehow "built in" to the cost of the car? Considering everyone needs it and everyone needs cars in America. Annuities are also just generally bad in practice for the consumer. Also, health insurance companies can discriminate against smokers, they're not a protected class for a reason. I think insurance is a bit tricky because it's a mess of adverse selection and other effects that make it very different from "classic" free-market stuff.
ptaipale 10y ago
I don't get your reasoning. On this flight, most people may be Samoan, but all Samoans are not overweight in the same way, and the variance of passenger weight is larger than with other flight routes. For this reason, finding out how much weight you put on each seat is actually very relevant for flight safety.
- rtpg 10y ago
  My reasoning was that, if you took a random sample from a population and seated them in the plan, then you'd be extremely likely to end up with a left-right weight imbalance of (for example) 50% of the average weight of a person from the population. I would have guessed the probable imbalance in any case would be very low compared to the total weight of the passengers + cargo, so not a big deal. But I suppose the airline tested whether their solution worked?
  - always_good 10y ago
    People don't sit on a plane randomly. Fat families sit together. And randomness is not an equal distribution. Also, cargo is lighter than the human payload. Most people aren't lugging around their body weight in luggage.
    - ptaipale 10y ago
      And, people do not object to weighing their luggage - and cannot prevent it or raise a noise if someone weighs it - so luggage can be loaded in a balanced way.

by rtpg 10y ago

gragas 10y ago

It is not and should not be the duty of anyone to mitigate disparate impact. It is, by definition, not the fault of the "accidentally discriminatory party".

rtpg 10y ago
The Civil Rights Act outlines protected classes from discrimination. I don't really see the argument against the government taking action against disparate impact in such situations. After all, the point of the CRA is to remove discriminatory situations. Much like a firefighter trying to stop a fire, whether intent is there is beside the point. The objective is to fix the problem. Though I don't really know whether what's mentioned in the article is really a case warranting action. The harm applied here seems pretty minor (no assigned seating).
- gragas 10y ago
  By your argument, no analysis should ever be applied to any decision involving humans because that has disparate impact. Car insurance companies should only charge one rate, because otherwise they're discriminating against teenagers and men. Health insurance companies should only charge one rate, otherwise they are discriminating against smokers. Life insurance companies should charge one rate, otherwise they discriminate against men. Annuities should all have the same payouts, otherwise they discriminate against women for the mere fact that they live longer on average. Really, I understand your sentiment, but government mandate is not the solution.
  - rtpg 10y ago
    Have you thought that maybe this is an argument against private insurance? Why should life insurance be necessary, instead of proper safety nets provided to all by he government. Why shouldn't car insurance be somehow "built in" to the cost of the car? Considering everyone needs it and everyone needs cars in America. Annuities are also just generally bad in practice for the consumer. Also, health insurance companies can discriminate against smokers, they're not a protected class for a reason. I think insurance is a bit tricky because it's a mess of adverse selection and other effects that make it very different from "classic" free-market stuff.

ptaipale 10y ago

I don't get your reasoning. On this flight, most people may be Samoan, but all Samoans are not overweight in the same way, and the variance of passenger weight is larger than with other flight routes. For this reason, finding out how much weight you put on each seat is actually very relevant for flight safety.

rtpg 10y ago
My reasoning was that, if you took a random sample from a population and seated them in the plan, then you'd be extremely likely to end up with a left-right weight imbalance of (for example) 50% of the average weight of a person from the population. I would have guessed the probable imbalance in any case would be very low compared to the total weight of the passengers + cargo, so not a big deal. But I suppose the airline tested whether their solution worked?
- always_good 10y ago
  People don't sit on a plane randomly. Fat families sit together. And randomness is not an equal distribution. Also, cargo is lighter than the human payload. Most people aren't lugging around their body weight in luggage.
  - ptaipale 10y ago
    And, people do not object to weighing their luggage - and cannot prevent it or raise a noise if someone weighs it - so luggage can be loaded in a balanced way.