Originally Posted by
William
Basically, it goes like this: Let's say you have Corporation A and Corporation B. Corporation A is perfectly fair and just and hires the best people with the most talent, while Corporation B is sexist and tends to hire men, even if there is a female with more talent. Corporation B interviews a man and a woman, with the woman having more talent. Corporation B hires the man. The woman interviewed by Corporation B applies to Corporation A and gets hired there. Now, Corporation B has to compete against better talent - resulting in a competitive disadvantage. By not hiring the best talent available, the success of their company becomes endangered. By having less talent, and being unable to deliver a better quality product at the most competitive price, they slowly lose market share, lose their profitability, and eventually go out of business or change their policies and start hiring the best talent, whether it's in men or women, in order to compete.
This is basically the argument made by right-wing capitalist Republicans, arguing for deregulation. They present the above argument that the market itself is enough of a corrective action to change behavior as businesses in the private market compete for profit. Why? Because the competitive market and the picky consumer makes them accountable. They will also argue that when there's more government, less competition and less accountability, sexism tends to increase.
They'll also make another logical argument - sometimes the fair/right people have to waste resources defending themselves against lawsuits because of equal rights laws: Let's say Corporation A, the fair organization, interviews a man and a woman. The man has more talent. Corporation A hires the man. However, the woman feels slighted and discriminated against. She doesn't apply elsewhere for someone else to hire her, but she starts a lawsuit against Corporation A, accusing them of being unfair in the hiring process. Eventually, Corporation A wins this lawsuit and successfully shows that they were fair during the hiring process. However, they had to spend millions of dollars in legal fees, attorney costs, etc., that ultimately take away from the product they are delivering to the consumer (might have to raise prices to pay for legal costs) - so the consumer suffers, as well as everyone working at Corporation A, even though they had done the right thing.
Some of the equal rights laws punish the good guy, hurt productivity, and are bad for the economy.
There is a counter argument though, typically made by the Democrats that call for more regulation, that I wish to present just as equally, for the sake of debate:
The above scenarios describe a situation in which the 'market' punishes the companies who discriminate, but it makes a big assumption that there is the presence of a Corporation A who is fair and just. What if there is no Corporation A who is fair? Or what if there aren't enough Corporation A's with open spots for the women with more talent?
What if, in an industry as a whole, many companies collude against women or share a common stereotype that men have more talent? What if an extremely talented woman applies to multiple corporations but doesn't get hired at any of them? When will there be corrective action or any fairness?
While some equal rights laws may punish the good guy in Corporation A, they also have an effect in punishing the bad guy in Corporation B. If for some reason, the motivation for money isn't enough, Corporation B now has to change or modify their hiring process in order to be more fair to women, and balance the costs of possibly violating the equal rights laws against their personal views of men being more talented than women.
Because of women's rights laws, many women have been given the opportunity to get hired at Corporation B, showcase their talent, and help change the minds of Corporation B and change their viewpoints. So the equal rights laws also provide a corrective action to the market, and they help defend women from being discriminated against.
Thoughts and/or comments?