7 ms·

In the USA, we decided that we're willing to make that trade off. We have 'protected characteristics' and we don't hire and fire people based on those characte

In the USA, we decided that we're willing to make that trade off. We have 'protected characteristics' and we don't hire and fire people based on those characteristics, or proxies of those characteristics. It might be less efficient for businesses, in some cases, but through the courts and our legislature, and within the bounds of our constitution we've decided it's a good trade-off for society.

tomjen3 8y ago
But then businesses will keep doing so secretly and indirectly, which will just hurt people who share correlating traits with the disadvantages hires, e.g women with no interest in having children.
- jhall1468 8y ago
  I'm not sure advocating that we remove the law in order to prevent businesses from quietly breaking it is really solving the problem here.
  - tomjen3 8y ago
    At least if that was the case we would be able to quantify it, and people would know which industries it was worst in, and how much (eg. you should expect your income to peak at 42 years, save accordingly).
    - jhall1468 8y ago
      Sure, we can also legalize murder and learn a lot more about people that do it, why and a whole bunch of other data, but we don't do that for obvious reasons. This is just a less fantastical example of that. And you can see how successful their attempt at hiding it was.
    - nsgi 8y ago
      Why would age discrimination be easier to quantify if it was legal?
    - analog31 8y ago
      Here's a thought experiment: Legislate a cutoff age right before the next election.
  - matz1 8y ago
    Its cost vs benefit. Trying to remove the law seems way more expensive and difficult compare to doing it secretly and indirectly.
- your-nanny 8y ago
  don't tax people because they'll just find ways to avoid paying them. don't set worker safety rules because companies will just bribe the inspectors. dont punish thieves because they'll just find wats to hide their thievery. don't punish murderers because they'll just do it less openly. don't set fuel efficiency standards because companies will cheat and lie to meet them. don't require good security hygiene because hackers will just find more devious means of hacking. don't outlaw discrimination in hiring and firing because they'll just find other indirect ways to do the same thing. /s
  - reaperducer 8y ago
    To you and me, that’s sarcasm. But there are regions of the world, and even entire nations, where that is not only popular thought, but public policy. Given the international nature of HN, I wouldn’t be surprised if some of the bewildered comments in this thread come from people who grew up in that kind of culture.
    - your-nanny 8y ago
      where?
omeid2 8y ago
Declaring protected classes is the easy part, but how do companies are to deal with it in an effective manner? Say a company has to fire 10% of it's work force and the people who are least fit for the culture and provide value happen to be over X years old. Should they fire n number of people under X too to balance it out? should they go halve-halve? don't fire and wait for bankruptcy?
- ajross 8y ago
  That logic only works in isolation, and because the particular class under discussion doesn't "feel like" discrimination. Seriously, would you really willing to go on the internet and explain how women aren't a "fit for the culture" or how south asian workers don't "provide value"?
  - omeid2 8y ago
    But there is no data that shows women or south asian workers are less productive. However, there is data for age, so much that in many countries there is mandatory driving test with ever shorter intervals as you grow older. This isn't discrimination or a risk factor that jumps overnight once you pass certain age, it is simply decline of cognitive and physical capacity as we age. I am not saying people should be fired because of their age, but if people who are subject to firing happen to be mostly aged, what is the solution?
    - ajross 8y ago
      We're talking about programmers in their 40's here, not retired drivers with dementia. Please cite the study where these workers are less productive. I'll wait. You're just taking on faith that these employers are making completely rational judgements that just "accidentally" affect a disadvantaged group. First, that's shockingly naive: what they're really doing is preferentially terminating these people because they are paid more (i.e. punishing them for being part of the system that gave them those raises in the first place). Second, it's directly refuted by the linked article! IBM didn't accidentally fire a bunch of older workers. They fired a bunch of old workers, knew what they had done, and tried to hide it.

tomjen3 8y ago

But then businesses will keep doing so secretly and indirectly, which will just hurt people who share correlating traits with the disadvantages hires, e.g women with no interest in having children.

jhall1468 8y ago
I'm not sure advocating that we remove the law in order to prevent businesses from quietly breaking it is really solving the problem here.
- tomjen3 8y ago
  At least if that was the case we would be able to quantify it, and people would know which industries it was worst in, and how much (eg. you should expect your income to peak at 42 years, save accordingly).
  - jhall1468 8y ago
    Sure, we can also legalize murder and learn a lot more about people that do it, why and a whole bunch of other data, but we don't do that for obvious reasons. This is just a less fantastical example of that. And you can see how successful their attempt at hiding it was.
  - nsgi 8y ago
    Why would age discrimination be easier to quantify if it was legal?
  - analog31 8y ago
    Here's a thought experiment: Legislate a cutoff age right before the next election.
- matz1 8y ago
  Its cost vs benefit. Trying to remove the law seems way more expensive and difficult compare to doing it secretly and indirectly.
your-nanny 8y ago
don't tax people because they'll just find ways to avoid paying them. don't set worker safety rules because companies will just bribe the inspectors. dont punish thieves because they'll just find wats to hide their thievery. don't punish murderers because they'll just do it less openly. don't set fuel efficiency standards because companies will cheat and lie to meet them. don't require good security hygiene because hackers will just find more devious means of hacking. don't outlaw discrimination in hiring and firing because they'll just find other indirect ways to do the same thing. /s
- reaperducer 8y ago
  To you and me, that’s sarcasm. But there are regions of the world, and even entire nations, where that is not only popular thought, but public policy. Given the international nature of HN, I wouldn’t be surprised if some of the bewildered comments in this thread come from people who grew up in that kind of culture.
  - your-nanny 8y ago
    where?

omeid2 8y ago

Declaring protected classes is the easy part, but how do companies are to deal with it in an effective manner? Say a company has to fire 10% of it's work force and the people who are least fit for the culture and provide value happen to be over X years old. Should they fire n number of people under X too to balance it out? should they go halve-halve? don't fire and wait for bankruptcy?

ajross 8y ago
That logic only works in isolation, and because the particular class under discussion doesn't "feel like" discrimination. Seriously, would you really willing to go on the internet and explain how women aren't a "fit for the culture" or how south asian workers don't "provide value"?
- omeid2 8y ago
  But there is no data that shows women or south asian workers are less productive. However, there is data for age, so much that in many countries there is mandatory driving test with ever shorter intervals as you grow older. This isn't discrimination or a risk factor that jumps overnight once you pass certain age, it is simply decline of cognitive and physical capacity as we age. I am not saying people should be fired because of their age, but if people who are subject to firing happen to be mostly aged, what is the solution?
  - ajross 8y ago
    We're talking about programmers in their 40's here, not retired drivers with dementia. Please cite the study where these workers are less productive. I'll wait. You're just taking on faith that these employers are making completely rational judgements that just "accidentally" affect a disadvantaged group. First, that's shockingly naive: what they're really doing is preferentially terminating these people because they are paid more (i.e. punishing them for being part of the system that gave them those raises in the first place). Second, it's directly refuted by the linked article! IBM didn't accidentally fire a bunch of older workers. They fired a bunch of old workers, knew what they had done, and tried to hide it.