3 ms·

The immoral part is where a senior employee was being paid less because she was "less valuable" on the open market due to her gender and ethnicity. Edit: see a

The immoral part is where a senior employee was being paid less because she was "less valuable" on the open market due to her gender and ethnicity. Edit: see also the recent stories about home values varying wildly based on whether the current owner is white or black. This is based on perceived 'market value', is this fair? https://www.cbsnews.com/news/freddie-mac-home-appraisal-housing-discrimination-black-homeowner/ https://www.cbsnews.com/news/freddie-mac-home-appraisal-hous...

robertlagrant 4y ago
What you're describing is illegal. If there's strong evidence, then the legal system should be brought to bear on discriminatory practices. I don't think that ascribing morality to the general case of people being able to freely enter into agreements at different prices is a good idea.
- fnimick 4y ago
  Is it illegal? The discrimination isn't based on anything other than the "free market" - if she could get a better offer elsewhere, they'd pay her more. The fact that she can't get a better offer elsewhere due to discrimination isn't evidence of discrimination on the part of the company that employs her, under your framework.
  - robertlagrant 4y ago
    It's illegal if the reason is as you say. You're arguing the wrong thing. The mechanism by which things are priced and agreed is a good thing. There are certain protected categories which cannot be used to set a price/offer except where they are directly relevant to the job. Whether you think that's good or bad is your prerogative, but that's how it works. However, having evidence that that is the reason such that we can be confident it is that, rather than assuming it, is difficult.
    - fnimick 4y ago
      Here's the situation. The market is biased against an individual such that the competing offers she receives are less than those of her coworkers. Therefore, the company pays her less. Is that legal?
      - deleted 4y ago
        [deleted]
      - robertlagrant 4y ago
        The market isn't biased. That's a category error. Individuals might be biased. Individuals en masse might even be biased. But the market in general is not the thing that is biased. You might say that it amounts to the same thing, but attributing the problem to the correct cause is important. It's important because it means that if the correct cause is bias, it's actually bias in every potential employer somehow, but how do you know? How do you know it's not something with the applicant or the application? Saying it's just a biased market means you don't even think of other things it could be, such as a badly presented CV or a missing key skill, or a difficult interviewing manner. Those are more likely to have every future employer reject you than something insidious. It's unlikely that every potential employer has such a large pool of candidates that bias is the thing that means you don't get a decent enough offer to even beat your current salary. But if it is a cabal of horrible biased people, then that's illegal and should be challenged as such. It's horribly unfair, but that's probably the best course.

robertlagrant 4y ago

What you're describing is illegal. If there's strong evidence, then the legal system should be brought to bear on discriminatory practices. I don't think that ascribing morality to the general case of people being able to freely enter into agreements at different prices is a good idea.

fnimick 4y ago
Is it illegal? The discrimination isn't based on anything other than the "free market" - if she could get a better offer elsewhere, they'd pay her more. The fact that she can't get a better offer elsewhere due to discrimination isn't evidence of discrimination on the part of the company that employs her, under your framework.
- robertlagrant 4y ago
  It's illegal if the reason is as you say. You're arguing the wrong thing. The mechanism by which things are priced and agreed is a good thing. There are certain protected categories which cannot be used to set a price/offer except where they are directly relevant to the job. Whether you think that's good or bad is your prerogative, but that's how it works. However, having evidence that that is the reason such that we can be confident it is that, rather than assuming it, is difficult.
  - fnimick 4y ago
    Here's the situation. The market is biased against an individual such that the competing offers she receives are less than those of her coworkers. Therefore, the company pays her less. Is that legal?
    - deleted 4y ago
      [deleted]
    - robertlagrant 4y ago
      The market isn't biased. That's a category error. Individuals might be biased. Individuals en masse might even be biased. But the market in general is not the thing that is biased. You might say that it amounts to the same thing, but attributing the problem to the correct cause is important. It's important because it means that if the correct cause is bias, it's actually bias in every potential employer somehow, but how do you know? How do you know it's not something with the applicant or the application? Saying it's just a biased market means you don't even think of other things it could be, such as a badly presented CV or a missing key skill, or a difficult interviewing manner. Those are more likely to have every future employer reject you than something insidious. It's unlikely that every potential employer has such a large pool of candidates that bias is the thing that means you don't get a decent enough offer to even beat your current salary. But if it is a cabal of horrible biased people, then that's illegal and should be challenged as such. It's horribly unfair, but that's probably the best course.