It has been proven time and time again that women, immigrants and disabled are less likely to be hired even when they have the same level of qualification. So the real people having a “bonus” are white males. If we can’t break this bias the easy way, the hard way with quotas it is then.
Except that quotas bring in a lot of other problems and are useless for the worker (source, my wife).
Would you like to have quotas for doctors or surgeons or nurses ?
Are you sure that in such cases (like many others where you need years of studies or experience) your hard way is the right path ?
Anyway I would keep out the disabled, they are entirely another categori with very peculiar problems when speaking about jobs.
Have you taken a look at those quotas? They are always worded “When candidates have the same qualifications, X will be given preference in hiring”. Nobody is given a job just for who they are.
Then you are not talking about quotas, you are talking about some sort of racism because X is hired based on the fact that he is in a specific group of people.
Quotas mandate that you have a certain ratio (simple example: 50/50 ratio between man and women) and force you to hire to reach that ratio, even if the candidate has not the right qualifications.
A common misconception. Take the article I linked previously: Everyone can apply for a rental apartment. However people with foreign sounding names are not given equal chance of receiving said rental.
The common misconception is that everyone is entitled to the same outcome. It is not possible (nor desiderable to be honest). Since I suppose that the1000 dollars paid from a white man are not less valuable then the 1000 dollars paid from someone with a foreign sounding name, the landlord make the decision based on other factors, like “this tenant will be able to always pay the rent on time ? Or he will damage the property ?”
If historically a certain group of people is a headache to rent to I think the landlord is in his rights to try to avoid it. We can discuss if or why a certain group could be an headache to rent to and what to do to try to solve the problem but the landlord is simply making a decision trying to avoid as much problems he can.
It’s in fact the whole premise of the Civil Rights Movement in the US: Yes, slavary and even segregation was abolished but people still were and are discriminated against on the basis of who they are.
To be honest, people are discriminated also based on what they do. Except for the Black Friday, how many times have you seen a crowd of white men ransacking a shop and stealing everything ? Not to say that white people don’t steal, but they had not (or have less of) some types of behavior and that reflects on every member of the group.
People don’t want to be discriminated ? They are right, but once the law abolish discrimination it is up to them to not give reasons to be discriminate, because the law can say that you are not an asshole but if you continue to be an asshole I will treat you like an asshole, law or not.
“You have problems now? Too bad, maybe in a couple years we can help.” Do I really have to comment on this?
Do whatever you want. But it was demostrated times and again that laws written to solve a problem in the here and now without thinking in the long term often have unplanned outcome that are worse then the initial problem.
Coupled with the last paragraph: Have you considered doing both? Helping people in the here and now and also working on long term solutions? Kind of like when breaking a bone a doctor gives you painkillers for the immediate relief and a cast to support the long term healing process?
Except the situation is something like “I can (try) give you a painkiller now but I have no idea how to heal your bone in the long term”, but I agree that this should be the path.
No, but you can prevent a good chunk of stupid people from doing stupid stuff by outlawing the stupid stuff.
You can try, and I agree that we should, but in a structural way, not to just solve the $EMERGENCY_OF_THE_DAY
Except that quotas bring in a lot of other problems and are useless for the worker (source, my wife).
Would you like to have quotas for doctors or surgeons or nurses ?
Are you sure that in such cases (like many others where you need years of studies or experience) your hard way is the right path ?
Anyway I would keep out the disabled, they are entirely another categori with very peculiar problems when speaking about jobs.
Then you are not talking about quotas, you are talking about some sort of racism because X is hired based on the fact that he is in a specific group of people.
Quotas mandate that you have a certain ratio (simple example: 50/50 ratio between man and women) and force you to hire to reach that ratio, even if the candidate has not the right qualifications.
The common misconception is that everyone is entitled to the same outcome. It is not possible (nor desiderable to be honest). Since I suppose that the1000 dollars paid from a white man are not less valuable then the 1000 dollars paid from someone with a foreign sounding name, the landlord make the decision based on other factors, like “this tenant will be able to always pay the rent on time ? Or he will damage the property ?”
If historically a certain group of people is a headache to rent to I think the landlord is in his rights to try to avoid it. We can discuss if or why a certain group could be an headache to rent to and what to do to try to solve the problem but the landlord is simply making a decision trying to avoid as much problems he can.
To be honest, people are discriminated also based on what they do. Except for the Black Friday, how many times have you seen a crowd of white men ransacking a shop and stealing everything ? Not to say that white people don’t steal, but they had not (or have less of) some types of behavior and that reflects on every member of the group.
People don’t want to be discriminated ? They are right, but once the law abolish discrimination it is up to them to not give reasons to be discriminate, because the law can say that you are not an asshole but if you continue to be an asshole I will treat you like an asshole, law or not.
Do whatever you want. But it was demostrated times and again that laws written to solve a problem in the here and now without thinking in the long term often have unplanned outcome that are worse then the initial problem.
Except the situation is something like “I can (try) give you a painkiller now but I have no idea how to heal your bone in the long term”, but I agree that this should be the path.
You can try, and I agree that we should, but in a structural way, not to just solve the $EMERGENCY_OF_THE_DAY