3 ms·

I disagree with your take. Compare two worlds: in one, because of discrimination, there are fewer engineers, scientists, talented statesmen, teachers; in the o

I disagree with your take. Compare two worlds: in one, because of discrimination, there are fewer engineers, scientists, talented statesmen, teachers; in the other, without discrimination, there are more of these professions. The second world is more beneficial to everyone, even those of the advantaged groups of the first world. In the second world, people are more likely to discover beneficial technologies, economic approaches, medical breakthroughs, whatever.

fxtentacle 5y ago
Your take assumes that highly paid highly respected jobs aren't a limited resource. In most universities there is a fixed number of PhD slots determined by the available budget. Then each person getting one of those jobs is blocking someone else from getting that job.
- rendall 5y ago
  > Your take assumes that highly paid highly respected jobs aren't a limited resource. The economy expands to accommodate talent. Jobs are bounded by it. Magically double our collective intelligence, and what we understand as a "job" would cease to have meaning. Suddenly double the number of engineers, and our economy would boom.
  - ghufran_syed 5y ago
    Yes, if we use "intelligence" as our metric when hiring, rather than using race. So why would we promote the latter instead of the former?
    - rendall 5y ago
      The discussion here is whether equality is zero-sum: disadvantageous to "advantaged groups". The argument for this view is that there are a limited number of jobs. If we were talking about dockworkers or factory workers maybe that's a point. My argument is that this lacks imagination. Were talking about enabling talent and creativity. The number of opportunities thereby expands to accommodate the extra number of talented people who recognize and pursue them.
  - fxtentacle 5y ago
    On a 10 year timescale, I would agree with you. But for the student finishing a master's degree, the only metric that matters is "PhD openings available this year". And short-term, job openings are zero sum.

fxtentacle 5y ago

Your take assumes that highly paid highly respected jobs aren't a limited resource. In most universities there is a fixed number of PhD slots determined by the available budget. Then each person getting one of those jobs is blocking someone else from getting that job.

rendall 5y ago
> Your take assumes that highly paid highly respected jobs aren't a limited resource. The economy expands to accommodate talent. Jobs are bounded by it. Magically double our collective intelligence, and what we understand as a "job" would cease to have meaning. Suddenly double the number of engineers, and our economy would boom.
- ghufran_syed 5y ago
  Yes, if we use "intelligence" as our metric when hiring, rather than using race. So why would we promote the latter instead of the former?
  - rendall 5y ago
    The discussion here is whether equality is zero-sum: disadvantageous to "advantaged groups". The argument for this view is that there are a limited number of jobs. If we were talking about dockworkers or factory workers maybe that's a point. My argument is that this lacks imagination. Were talking about enabling talent and creativity. The number of opportunities thereby expands to accommodate the extra number of talented people who recognize and pursue them.
- fxtentacle 5y ago
  On a 10 year timescale, I would agree with you. But for the student finishing a master's degree, the only metric that matters is "PhD openings available this year". And short-term, job openings are zero sum.