3 ms·

Laws are, when related to restricting companies, generally intended to address the difference between the interests of citizens/the state and the interests of c

Laws are, when related to restricting companies, generally intended to address the difference between the interests of citizens/the state and the interests of corporates. Many corporations would love to pay staff less money, provide fewer benefits, not worry about pollution, not pay any taxes or other things which cost them money but don't make them money. Laws which restrict corporations or require them to do certain things are designed to change behaviour that would not occur in a free market, for the good of the country and it's citizens. In this case allowing corporations to choose younger people, who can generally be acquired more cheaply, has been considered not to be in the interests of the USA or its citizens, so there is legislation to require companies not to discriminate in this fashion. Seems logical to me. As a citizen of a country I don't want to allow corporations to do whatever they want, given that their interests may not align with mine or those of the country I live in.

lend000 9y ago
If there's an externality, I'm all for addressing it. With pollution, there clearly is. However, for discrimination, there are two issues: 1. challenges to freedom of association. 2. The fact that it is a thought crime, which I discuss in other comments on this thread. Also, it's easy to hate on corporations, but these laws also apply to small family businesses, startups, etc.
- raesene6 9y ago
  I'd say that there clearly is an externality being addressed by age discrimination legislation. It's not in the interests of the state to have corporations pushing down wages by favouring only younger staff. Low wages == low tax receipts, which is objectively bad for countries and their citizens. Also as citizens it's hardly in the interests of the group as a whole in allowing corporations to drive down salaries and make older citizens redundant. Every young citizen who might benefit from such actions now will become an old citizen who will get the downside later in life. At the moment we're discussing the behaviour of a large corporation (google) so it makes sense to address that class of company. To be clear, I don't hate corporations at all, but nor to I have any faith that they'll always act in the best interests of the country I live in, in fact I expect them not to do so where their interests diverge from the interests of the country and so I expect my government to address that with legislation.

lend000 9y ago

If there's an externality, I'm all for addressing it. With pollution, there clearly is. However, for discrimination, there are two issues: 1. challenges to freedom of association. 2. The fact that it is a thought crime, which I discuss in other comments on this thread. Also, it's easy to hate on corporations, but these laws also apply to small family businesses, startups, etc.

raesene6 9y ago
I'd say that there clearly is an externality being addressed by age discrimination legislation. It's not in the interests of the state to have corporations pushing down wages by favouring only younger staff. Low wages == low tax receipts, which is objectively bad for countries and their citizens. Also as citizens it's hardly in the interests of the group as a whole in allowing corporations to drive down salaries and make older citizens redundant. Every young citizen who might benefit from such actions now will become an old citizen who will get the downside later in life. At the moment we're discussing the behaviour of a large corporation (google) so it makes sense to address that class of company. To be clear, I don't hate corporations at all, but nor to I have any faith that they'll always act in the best interests of the country I live in, in fact I expect them not to do so where their interests diverge from the interests of the country and so I expect my government to address that with legislation.