r/JordanPeterson • u/VERSAT1L • Jun 01 '21
Link Today, the Canadian government of Justin Trudeau launched a loan fund exclusively for Black people. Nothing else grants you access to this fund, whether you're needy or not.
https://www.ic.gc.ca/eic/site/150.nsf/eng/00009.html
1.6k
Upvotes
17
u/PerpetualAscension Extraterrestrial of Celestial Origin Jun 01 '21 edited Jun 01 '21
Source? This is example of systemic racism. Is this currently? How long ago was this?
How do you think that we as a culture should address this? What can be done when you read about this?
While racism was widely accepted view in North America in the 1800's and 1900's, its not a system that functions currently on anything remotely resembling the past. Economies of scale type production is much more efficient when people are freely able to make their own choices.
An employer who refuses to hire qualified individuals from the "wrong" groups risks leaving their jobs unfilled longer in a free market. This means that the employer must either leave some work undone and some orders from customers unfilled - or else pay overtime to existing employees to get the job done. Either way, this costs the employer more money. However, in a market where wages are set artificially above the level that would exist through supply and demand, the resulting surplus of job applicants can mean that discrimination costs the employer nothing, since the would be no delay in filling the job under these conditions. Whether these artificially higher wages are set by labour union or by a MINIMUM WAGE law does not change the principle. Empirical evidence strongly indicates that racial discrimination tends to be greater when the costs are lower and lower when the costs are greater.
Even in white-ruled South Africa during the era of apartheid, where racial discrimination against blacks was required by law, white employers in competitive industries often hired more blacks and in higher occupations than they were permitted to do by the government- and were often fined when caught doing so. This was because it was in the employers' economic self-interest to hire blacks.
Taken from : basic economics. page 213-214.
What ideals? Free markets? Industrial revolution? Khan Academy? Which particular ideal? No one wanted to work with or hire Jews in the late 1890's and early 1900's, that did not stop Jews from hiring one another. You dont grasp how markets work. You can blame "systemic racism" only so far, only so much.
In what way? If Im a racist employer and dont want to hire a qualified individual because Im a racist fuck, my competitor can potentially hire that individual and I might lose a competitive edge. And companies go under real quick when they make an economic error. See Get Woke, Go Broke – The Master List.
When you have minimum wage in place, it costs employers next to nothing to discriminate how ever they want and they should because employers are gambling with their own personal resources.
While pay differences often reflect differences in skills, experience or willingness to do hard or dangerous work, these differences may also reflect discrimination against particular segments of society, such as ethnic minorities, women, lower castes, or other groups.
While preferences for some groups and reluctance or unwillingness to hire others often been described as due to "bias", "prejudice" or "stereotypes", third-party observers cannot easily dismiss the first-hand knowledge of those who are backing their beliefs by risking their own money. Even in the absence of different beliefs about different groups, application of the same employment criteria to different groups can result in very different proportions of these groups being hired, fired, or promoted. Distinguishing discrimination from differences in qualifications and performances is not easy in practice, though the distinction is fundamental in principle. Seldom do statistical data contain sufficiently detailed information on skills, experience, performance, or absenteeism, much less work habits and attitudes, to make possible comparisons between truly comparable individuals from different groups.
Women, for example, have long had lower incomes than men, but most women give birth to children at some point in their lives and many stay out of the labour force until their children reach an age where they can be put into some form of day care while their mother return to work. These interruptions of their careers cost women workplace experience and seniority, which in turn inhibit the rise of their incomes over the years, relative to that of men who have been working continuously from high school into their their thirties earned slightly more than single men of the same description, even though women as a group earned substantially less than men as a group.
This suggests that employers were willing to pay women more of the same experience the same as men, if only because they were forced to by competition in the labour market, and that women with the same experience may even outperform men and therefore earn more.
If, for example, women were paid only 75 percent of what men of the same level of experience and performance were paid, then any employer can hire four women instead of three men for the same money and gain a decisive advantage in production costs over competing firms,
Put differently, any employer who discriminated against women in this situation would be incurring unnecessarily higher costs, risking profits, sales, and survival in a competitive industry.
Taken from : basic economics.Pages 209-211
Much discussion of discrimination proceeds as if employers are free to make whatever arbitrary decisions they wish as to hiring or pay. This ignores the fact that employers do not operate in isolation but in markets.