4 ms·
If we replaced the grocery store in the example with a Hooters and we replaced white and black grocers with female and male servers, it's easier to see the poin
by Dracophoenix 1y ago
If we replaced the grocery store in the example with a Hooters and we replaced white and black grocers with female and male servers, it's easier to see the point being made. This is not to say that it is economically (or morally) sensible in the long term (e.g. Hooters), but it is certainly rational to appeal to a customer's discriminatory preferences for so long as it generates recurring revenue or until some other more profitable avenue opens up. A similar strategy is at play with "Made in USA" marketing (whether or not such claims are true) over the past two decades in its appeal to discrimination/patriotism over financial soundness. In many cases it works.
> If just that one owner practices race-blind hiring out of their own personal beliefs they would definitely be harmed. If the law requires every store to practice race-blind hiring and the law is strictly enforced, racist customers will just have to get over themselves or stop buying groceries.
The harm is to the agency of the owners. The entire point of a free market is voluntary terms of entry, association, and exit notwithstanding contractual obligations to the contrary. There is no harm to a grocery owner who voluntarily chooses to defy the trend set by his competitors except economic self-harm should he suffer a net loss of customers over the decision. It's the freedom of the consumer to consciously or unconsciously boycott a store that doesn't appeal to his preferences (whether for or against racial discrimination), however petty such preferences are or irrelevant to his purpose (i.e. buying food). It is also the consumer's freedom to patronize a store that does. Conversely, the owner may find new consumers and thus a new of source revenue that outperforms that of his competitors through the practice of race-blind hiring.
> If the law requires every store to practice race-blind hiring and the law is strictly enforced, racist customers will just have to get over themselves or stop buying groceries.
Or the customers can move out to the countryside, a suburb, or a small town where they can only find white grocers. They can also look for farmers' cooperatives or food clubs unlikely to be staffed by any other race.
- triceratops 1y ago> The harm is to the agency of the owners The status quo of discrimination caused harm to the agency of minority employees and shoppers. Why are "owners" more important than them? > There is no harm to a grocery owner... except economic self-harm So then there is harm. Economic harm is kinda the important kind of harm to a business owner. Every other "harm" is surmountable. > Or the customers can move out to the countryside, a suburb, or a small town where they can only find white grocers So what's the problem? They've added transaction costs for themselves to express their preferences.