3 ms·
I imagine that many implicit rackets are irrational, and many explicit ones are ultimately later deemed to be morally-objectionable. So in the case of the forme
by bsanr2 7y ago
I imagine that many implicit rackets are irrational, and many explicit ones are ultimately later deemed to be morally-objectionable. So in the case of the former, no one wants to disturb a stable component of profitability, even as there is a sense that the paradigm is suboptimal, archaic, or however else a schema may become irrational. The latter is the answer to your last two questions.
- eru 7y agoThat's a reasonable point! Though I don't think it's strong enough in the long run. See eg https://www.economist.com/business/2010/10/21/profiting-from-sexism https://www.economist.com/business/2010/10/21/profiting-from... (going via Google Search or so might be required to get around the paywall). But the subtitle already gives the gist: "If South Korean firms won’t make use of female talent, foreigners will" South Korean companies are pretty sexist and pay women less and given them fewer opportunities. But foreign multinationals don't share that sentiment, and are happy to hire talented women. (The article is a few years old. These days the foreign multinational companies might even be extra happy, because it helps them boost their global diversity stats.)