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.
Discrimination only hurts you in the short term. In fact, it's one of the greatest failures of racial discrimination policies. If you target people who are entrepreneurial and innovative, not only to they find a way around the discrimination. Since they aren't dependent on the system, the discrimination actually cuts the inefficiency.
Under white-supremacist discrimination in California, asians and jews were both targeted with explicit discrimination. Both groups managed to out-perform whites after a decade or so, necessitating new levels of discrimination. This is actually why the first minimum wage was invented: to keep non-whites from getting gainfully employed. Instead asians invented laundry businesses and became successful despite the restrictions.
The policies fundamentally failed because even though the discrimination hurts you, it can't really stop you or destroy you with simple restrictions.
This is why the welfare state has been way more devastating to American blacks than Jim Crow was: it actually preserves the incentives enough that fosters dependency and makes success far more beneficial than doing nothing and promoting stagnation.
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.
Discrimination only hurts you in the short term. In fact, it's one of the greatest failures of racial discrimination policies. If you target people who are entrepreneurial and innovative, not only to they find a way around the discrimination. Since they aren't dependent on the system, the discrimination actually cuts the inefficiency.
Under white-supremacist discrimination in California, asians and jews were both targeted with explicit discrimination. Both groups managed to out-perform whites after a decade or so, necessitating new levels of discrimination. This is actually why the first minimum wage was invented: to keep non-whites from getting gainfully employed. Instead asians invented laundry businesses and became successful despite the restrictions.
The policies fundamentally failed because even though the discrimination hurts you, it can't really stop you or destroy you with simple restrictions.
This is why the welfare state has been way more devastating to American blacks than Jim Crow was: it actually preserves the incentives enough that fosters dependency and makes success far more beneficial than doing nothing and promoting stagnation.