On the contrary, it depends on the consumer, not the business owner. It's the demand that is at issue. You win the culture war among your community first.
This is a complete inversion of reality, especially today. Imagine how difficult it is to boycott the place where peoples buy their food. Add in all the shell companies and other shadowy bullshit, and it's even hard to figure out what a company might be doing in the first place. Then there is the ownership of mass communication and the resultant advantages in the info war that entails. I'm baffled that anyone who posts here still believes this stuff.
it's likely that you'll be worth keeping happy as you create more benefit to your new employer.
Huh? Being discriminated against gives you less leverage over your alternative employer, not more, baffling stuff you are trying to claim here.
There wasn't really any institutional structure that barred women from working.
The agricultural nature of labor did that. That became less and less of the case after the industrial revolution and its consequences (kek).
I've never argued for forced integration. Instead, it happens naturally over time, on an individual level.
People refusing to employ you reduces the demand for your labor. There is not a single upside to that within liberalism. You're making some weird points for a lolbert. This is a complete contradiction of market logic.
I think all of human history has shown it.
On the contrary, human history is rife with tribalism.
People refusing to employ you reduces the demand for your labor. There is not a single upside to that within liberalism. You're making some weird points for a lolbert. This is a complete contradiction of market logic.
You're not recognizing the passage of time. If you are a great deal (high productivity, low cost), an employer will be more inclined to higher you, and then will be more inclined to keep you. As you provide productivity that improves the business, making sure you don't leave or do something else becomes a higher priority.
That applies to people who don't face discrimination as well, and they will have more leverage. Again, if you believe in supply & demand, it's obvious discrimination hurts you. It means less demand for your labor.
This is a complete inversion of reality, especially today. Imagine how difficult it is to boycott the place where peoples buy their food. Add in all the shell companies and other shadowy bullshit, and it's even hard to figure out what a company might be doing in the first place. Then there is the ownership of mass communication and the resultant advantages in the info war that entails. I'm baffled that anyone who posts here still believes this stuff.
Huh? Being discriminated against gives you less leverage over your alternative employer, not more, baffling stuff you are trying to claim here.
The agricultural nature of labor did that. That became less and less of the case after the industrial revolution and its consequences (kek).
That's pure conjecture on your part.
This whole conversation was about how I would address a specific example.
Initially. That's my point: if you're an in-demand worker and someone refuses to employ you, you can become very valuable for another employer.
I think all of human history has shown it.
People refusing to employ you reduces the demand for your labor. There is not a single upside to that within liberalism. You're making some weird points for a lolbert. This is a complete contradiction of market logic.
On the contrary, human history is rife with tribalism.
You're not recognizing the passage of time. If you are a great deal (high productivity, low cost), an employer will be more inclined to higher you, and then will be more inclined to keep you. As you provide productivity that improves the business, making sure you don't leave or do something else becomes a higher priority.
That applies to people who don't face discrimination as well, and they will have more leverage. Again, if you believe in supply & demand, it's obvious discrimination hurts you. It means less demand for your labor.