5 ms·

> I believe it should be his right to just simply say my product is not for blind people, and dedicate no resources to servicing this hypothetical user base. F

> I believe it should be his right to just simply say my product is not for blind people, and dedicate no resources to servicing this hypothetical user base. Fortunately, in America we don't believe discrimination is acceptable, and we've codified that principle in the law.

JoeAltmaier 7y ago
Ha. The ADA has been put into law, yes. The result was reduced employment opportunities for disabled people. Because the cost of conforming to the law is prohibitive. Apparently, in America, its more important to appear to be virtuous than to actually do good. The law of unintended consequences.
- CathedralBorrow 7y ago
  Can you source your claim? I am genuinely interested in reading it.
  - esyir 7y ago
    As with most research, take multiple sources. A quick survey showed this (admittedly rather old paper), but it does show the immediate effect: https://www.jstor.org/stable/pdf/146368.pdf?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents https://www.jstor.org/stable/pdf/146368.pdf?seq=1#page_scan_... >On average over the post-ADA period, employment of men with disabilities was 7.2 percentage points lower than before the act was passed. In addition, wages of disabled men did not change with the passage of the ADA. http://www.law.harvard.edu/programs/olin_center/papers/pdf/Jolls_497.pdf http://www.law.harvard.edu/programs/olin_center/papers/pdf/J... This one is long, and they do mention some positive impact on education later. Didn't read that far though. >while relative disabled employment declined significantly just after the ADA’s enactment in states in which these provisions were a substantial innovation relative to the pre-ADA state-level employment discrimination regime, relative disabled employment was stable in states with ADA-like employment discrimination regimes in place prior to the ADA’s enactment Non-exhaustive search, but the data seems to indicate that ADA reduced employment for the disabled shortly after inception. I'm not certain on the longer term effects (those are also much more annoying to model here).
    - foldr 7y ago
      The negative effects on employment were a blip: https://www.nber.org/digest/nov04/w10528.html https://www.nber.org/digest/nov04/w10528.html
      - JoeAltmaier 7y ago
        It's great to think that the ADA damage was short-lived. But rather than a 'blip', it lasted 'through the 1990s' by that reference (thanks!) which cut out the prime earning years of a whole generation of disabled people. Again, Law of Unintended Consequences.
curryst 7y ago
Of course we do, we allow and encourage discrimination on a number of fronts. The most obvious is discrimination based on socioeconomic status; we have a whole host of "luxury" products that are kept inaccessible to lower income people so they can serve as a status symbol. Education is another lateral that is generally viewed as acceptable for discrimination (i.e. jobs that require a particular degree). Financial, employment and criminal histories are all also acceptable to discriminate based on. It's perfectly acceptable to not allow someone to rent an apartment because they have a criminal history, or a poor financial or employment history. It's also acceptable for American Express to not issue black cards to people who don't make a million dollars a year. We have codified some traits that we do not allow discrimination based on, but generally speaking, discrimination is acceptable. Unless you change the general definition of "discrimination" to the legal one, which would seem to make the argument circular (i.e. we have banned discrimination where discrimination is the things we have banned).

JoeAltmaier 7y ago

Ha. The ADA has been put into law, yes. The result was reduced employment opportunities for disabled people. Because the cost of conforming to the law is prohibitive. Apparently, in America, its more important to appear to be virtuous than to actually do good. The law of unintended consequences.

CathedralBorrow 7y ago
Can you source your claim? I am genuinely interested in reading it.
- esyir 7y ago
  As with most research, take multiple sources. A quick survey showed this (admittedly rather old paper), but it does show the immediate effect: https://www.jstor.org/stable/pdf/146368.pdf?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents https://www.jstor.org/stable/pdf/146368.pdf?seq=1#page_scan_... >On average over the post-ADA period, employment of men with disabilities was 7.2 percentage points lower than before the act was passed. In addition, wages of disabled men did not change with the passage of the ADA. http://www.law.harvard.edu/programs/olin_center/papers/pdf/Jolls_497.pdf http://www.law.harvard.edu/programs/olin_center/papers/pdf/J... This one is long, and they do mention some positive impact on education later. Didn't read that far though. >while relative disabled employment declined significantly just after the ADA’s enactment in states in which these provisions were a substantial innovation relative to the pre-ADA state-level employment discrimination regime, relative disabled employment was stable in states with ADA-like employment discrimination regimes in place prior to the ADA’s enactment Non-exhaustive search, but the data seems to indicate that ADA reduced employment for the disabled shortly after inception. I'm not certain on the longer term effects (those are also much more annoying to model here).
  - foldr 7y ago
    The negative effects on employment were a blip: https://www.nber.org/digest/nov04/w10528.html https://www.nber.org/digest/nov04/w10528.html
    - JoeAltmaier 7y ago
      It's great to think that the ADA damage was short-lived. But rather than a 'blip', it lasted 'through the 1990s' by that reference (thanks!) which cut out the prime earning years of a whole generation of disabled people. Again, Law of Unintended Consequences.

curryst 7y ago

Of course we do, we allow and encourage discrimination on a number of fronts. The most obvious is discrimination based on socioeconomic status; we have a whole host of "luxury" products that are kept inaccessible to lower income people so they can serve as a status symbol. Education is another lateral that is generally viewed as acceptable for discrimination (i.e. jobs that require a particular degree). Financial, employment and criminal histories are all also acceptable to discriminate based on. It's perfectly acceptable to not allow someone to rent an apartment because they have a criminal history, or a poor financial or employment history. It's also acceptable for American Express to not issue black cards to people who don't make a million dollars a year. We have codified some traits that we do not allow discrimination based on, but generally speaking, discrimination is acceptable. Unless you change the general definition of "discrimination" to the legal one, which would seem to make the argument circular (i.e. we have banned discrimination where discrimination is the things we have banned).