mhatten said:
It did pretty well, how much better it would have done is completely subjective. We can only go by the evidence, it is possible to operate an aprtheid state and do well economically. Of course the majority are doing well at the expense of the minority but what is a small thing regading morality got to do with economics.
"Pretty well" is completely subjective...
Plus, you put your own case in danger by making this claim.
According to you, firms are not being harmed for acting discriminatorily. So, according to you, their discrimination is based on real relevant differences, because if it weren't the firms would suffer for it (they would not be as profitable as they could be).
That is not what AA does. If that was the case, and firms always acted in their best interest and hired, promoted and fired based on what is "best" the need for EEOC/AA would be non-existant.
By interfering in any way with someone's rights to hire whomever they want for a job the EEOC/AA is doing something wrong.
If I wanted to hire a painter and chose a blind man for the job, it would be completely within my rights. I could also hire someone who didn't know the first thing about painting, and if any coercitive agency interfered and forced me to hire another candidate because he was the "best choice" and was "harmed" by my choice (or because he had some trait that was discriminated against) that would be a complete violation of my right to choose among the applicants that which I prefer, and it would harm the individual I would have hired if the government had not forced me to do otherwise.
I suggest you Google do Black names matter, however that is why most cases of discrimiantion are based on historical data and not on individual claims.
When someone offers a job it is within their rights to give it to whomever candidate they choose for whatever characteristic they choose.
Even if they choose by name, or by the grandparents' name, it is their job offer and they may hire whomever they choose among the candidates.
The firm is not harming anyone, and how do you come to that conclusion?
The offering of an extra possibility can never be harmful. Let's say I have 0 job possibilities. Then a job possibility is offered to me. Sadly, another candidate is chosen over me. I am back to my original state, and the man who got hired is better than he was before (or else he wouldn't have accepted the deal).
Even if I were not hired because of some physical trait I have, I was not harmed by the firm's choice, since the job was only being offered because the firm chose to do so.
Every single imposition on the labour market can only generate more unemployment, for it destroys possibilities of job contracts that would exist if the law was not passed.