Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: $Revision: 1.6.2.16 $; site inmet.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!bonnie!akgua!whuxlm!harpo!decvax!yale!inmet!nrh
From: nrh@inmet.UUCP
Newsgroups: net.politics
Subject: Re: Re: (Re:**N) Affirmative Action
Message-ID: <7800346@inmet.UUCP>
Date: Sun, 30-Jun-85 03:03:00 EDT
Article-I.D.: inmet.7800346
Posted: Sun Jun 30 03:03:00 1985
Date-Received: Fri, 5-Jul-85 05:31:14 EDT
References: <259@kontron.UUCP>
Lines: 50
Nf-ID: #R:kontron:-25900:inmet:7800346:000:2335
Nf-From: inmet!nrh    Jun 30 03:03:00 1985


>/**** inmet:net.politics / sdcsla!west /  3:18 am  Jun 25, 1985 ****/
>
>I'm curious about Clayton's last phrase.   I'd like to hear people's
>suggestions as to:
>	
>	1) Does the "free market" presently work to make
>	   discrimination costly [i.e., costly enough to
>	   matter]?

Yes.  Unquestionably.  For details, see Walter Williams, "The 
State Against Blacks".  In general, acting within the confines
of a prejudice not in harmony with reality tends to make you
make mistakes (you fail to hire the best person for the job because
he's black, you fail to rent to the most desirable tenant because
she's not Christian (or whatever).  A competitor, not bound by these
rules can take advantage of the situation by attracting people who
you refuse to deal with.  Because you have lowered your demand 
for these people (by refusing to deal with them) he may pay less, or
charge more (he faces less competition for their services or tennancy), and
he gets a better employee/tenant than you do.  In short, you labor under
a disadvantage because you choose to be less free than your competitors.


>
>	2) What means could/should be taken to encourage
>	   this behavior of the marketplace?

I think the best solution is making the costs of discrimination as clear
as possible.  Once realized, the benefits of seeking out those discriminated
against and doing business with them will be self-sustaining.  

>
>	3) What sorts of trade-offs of rights/privileges
>	   do/will the answers to 1) and 2) have?

The greatest difficulty with my suggestion is that it is politically
very difficult for politicians to do nothing when it is not clearly
understood by almost everybody that this is what they do best.
The temptation to "hurry things along" will remain, no matter
how many books Charles Murray publishes refuting the programs which
try to do so.  Government efforts to do so (especially those
requiring quotas of private firms) are bound to make things worse, but
the politician who implements them now has something to wave
at during election time.

Although you're trying to avoid discussions of whether the market is
free, I point out that certain constraints on the market (in particular
minimum wage laws) tend to worsen the competitive positions of people
attempting to enter the job market for the first time with no training.