3 ms·

The same story happened in many fields, not just law. Historically, the marked exploiting cheap resources was so pervasive that we generally needed the governm

The same story happened in many fields, not just law. Historically, the marked exploiting cheap resources was so pervasive that we generally needed the government to prevent it. For example, to prevent employers from hiring cheaper negroes over whites, we passed Jim Crow and Davis Bacon laws. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Davis%E2%80%93Bacon_Act https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Davis%E2%80%93Bacon_Act https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jim_Crow_laws https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jim_Crow_laws

emodendroket 10y ago
If the idea here is that more diverse companies can pay lower wages and benefit that way then it may have something to it but it's hard to see that as the market "solving the problem."
- aurelianito 10y ago
  When people are hired their salaries go up, solving the issue.
  - emodendroket 10y ago
    Except that the whole reason these smart companies are hiring them is that they can get them for bargain-basement wages, so a large disparity continues to exist.
    - mos_basik 10y ago
      If I understand correctly, the extension of the argument (in light of your objection) is this: assuming two equally sized and skilled pools of employees, Company Diversity will spend less on salaries than Company Bigot - meaning those funds are able to be spent elsewhere, giving Company Diversity a competitive advantage in the market. Eventually Company Bigot goes out of business (or lowers their salaries). Of course we assume, in this thought experiment, that all the other things Company Bigot could do to become more competitive (invest in more employee training, better infrastructure, etc) are also available to Company Diversity. This isn't always the case. Maybe Company Diversity's hiring practices have alienated it from potential suppliers or clients who prefer Company Bigot's views. Specifically I'm thinking of Japan, where (apparently; source: this site) the cultural emphasis on the salaryman paradigm means that hiring from the significant pool of contract labor can hurt your company image as far as working with the established corporations is concerned.

emodendroket 10y ago

If the idea here is that more diverse companies can pay lower wages and benefit that way then it may have something to it but it's hard to see that as the market "solving the problem."

aurelianito 10y ago
When people are hired their salaries go up, solving the issue.
- emodendroket 10y ago
  Except that the whole reason these smart companies are hiring them is that they can get them for bargain-basement wages, so a large disparity continues to exist.
  - mos_basik 10y ago
    If I understand correctly, the extension of the argument (in light of your objection) is this: assuming two equally sized and skilled pools of employees, Company Diversity will spend less on salaries than Company Bigot - meaning those funds are able to be spent elsewhere, giving Company Diversity a competitive advantage in the market. Eventually Company Bigot goes out of business (or lowers their salaries). Of course we assume, in this thought experiment, that all the other things Company Bigot could do to become more competitive (invest in more employee training, better infrastructure, etc) are also available to Company Diversity. This isn't always the case. Maybe Company Diversity's hiring practices have alienated it from potential suppliers or clients who prefer Company Bigot's views. Specifically I'm thinking of Japan, where (apparently; source: this site) the cultural emphasis on the salaryman paradigm means that hiring from the significant pool of contract labor can hurt your company image as far as working with the established corporations is concerned.