The problem is that sub-optimal policies can still work as a good heuristic. For instance, you might say "it's so hard to wade through these resumes, I'm just

The problem is that sub-optimal policies can still work as a good heuristic. For instance, you might say "it's so hard to wade through these resumes, I'm just going to toss out everyone who doesn't have a degree in Computer Science from a list of preferred universities, everyone who is unemployed, and everyone whose age doesn't fall between 26 and 35". This is where "fairness", in spite of how hard (and even dangerous) it is to define, does matter, because many people believe that a civilized society has an interest in enforcing some basic standards of fairness. The goal isn't to make life fair, which is impossible, it's to set a minimum standard. For instance, auto insurance companies used to charge men under 25 more for car insurance than women. And it was very clear that males were more likely to result in a claim than women in this age group. However, does using this distinction violate basic standards of fairness? What if you could make a similar claim for a religious group? A racial group? An age group? People tend to differ on exactly where they draw the line, though almost everyone agrees that the line should be drawn somewhere. Personally, I think that using employment status as a screen strikes me as unfair on a gut level, but I think it does exceed the basic decency standard. In other words, I don't think it should illegal, but I definitely don't like it.