Then there are libertarians like Rand Paul, who take the view that anti-discrimination legislation in general is a bad idea because it infringes on the right of business owners to run their companies as they choose. When challenged, this school of thought often argues that left to its own devices, the market will eventually eliminate discrimination as customers avoid businesses with discriminatory practices. But the law is largely reactive, and as I remarked earlier, the sheer number of protected classes and amount of legislation suggests that the opposite is true; that the market gives businesses in general and recruiters in particular strong incentives to discriminate.
So while sympathizing with already overburdened HR professionals for whom it will make their jobs that bit more difficult, I welcome the proposed legislation. And if it doesn't pass? Well, there's always the maxim of the market, which says that if an employer chooses not to hire you because of some arbitrary reason such as your inconsiderate failure to have a paycheck, they probably weren't worth working for anyway. But then there's that other economic maxim: beggars can't be choosers. Better, perhaps, to work for an asshole: then at least you improve your chances of landing a slightly better job with a slightly lesser asshole.
Article comments
1 - Glenn Contrarian
Doc -
Great article - and your line that "beggars can't be choosers" echoes what I said in my earlier article wherein I pointed out that a libertarian economy can work, but requires a cheap and compliant labor force - an "underclass", as Dave Nalle called it.
And back come the bad old days of the Industrial Revolution with a great yawning divide of the haves and have-nots. But hey - that's pure capitalist freedom, is it not?
2 - jamminsue
Oh, yes! I recently wrote a paper explaining that the people of the US remain docile ONLY because they think they will be the next winner in the 'next millionare lottery' or 'captain of industry'.
3 - Jordan Richardson
Great article and good to see you writing again, but the links were a little wonky for me. Anyone else have trouble?
4 - Christopher Rose
The links were all messed up but are now fixed.
Thanks for the heads up, Jordan.
5 - roger nowosielski
Rather minor point, Dreadful, for I don't disagree much with the thrust of your argument (except perhaps the beggars' part, since I have no one to account to other than myself). It's got to do with structure.
Your main dichotomy concerns those who are being discriminated against (on a/c of being unemployed) and those who are not.
Then you pose a question: what if the anti-discrimination legislation that's being proposed doesn't pass?
Well, one would expect that the next thing you'd do would be to provide some remedies to those who are being discriminated against and there being no protection under the law. But you don't anything of the kind, so, I don't know how best to put it, you're either shifting the goal posts or simply changing the topic without there being an adequate transition in the body of the text.
Indeed, what you're introducing is another interesting dichotomy between complete and only partial a....s, couched, as you say, in terms of economic realities.
But in reality, neither option you introduce is a remedy (especially to the unemployed). Both serve in fact as forms of consolation: the first, to the discriminated-against group; the second to those who are not.
Do you see what I'm getting at?
6 - Dr Dreadful
Jordan, Chris: That's odd, the links worked for me yesterday.
Roger: Perhaps this is something we can address in the comments space.
7 - Tommy Mack
Stipulating active employment as a qualifying criterion is discriminatory under a lot of US Code, just as age discrimination, which will be proved, in court, when it gets there.
Tommy