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.