Comment on Affirmative Action debate

[craigthedeac]

ojc02:
[ QUOTE ]
From Craig:

[ QUOTE ]
The need for affirmative action in the workplace:
“People of color and women are more likely to be unemployed, employed at lower wages, and hold jobs with a lower base pay.” (ACLU)

• The average woman loses approximately $523,000 in wages over a lifetime due to disparities. (ACLU)

The National Urban Institute showed unfair hiring practices in a study where it sent equally qualified applicants on interviews for entry-level jobs. The applicants were “coached to have similar levels of enthusiasm and ‘articulateness.’ The young white men received 45% more job offers than their African American co-testers; whites were offered the job 52% more often than Latino ‘applicants.’”

Keep in mind that using affirmative action to help correct these disparities doesn’t mean just letting any under-represented person have a job or get accepted at a school. A person’s race or gender is merely one factor that ought to be given weight. It should be viewed as allowing these groups, who are otherwise unfairly evaluated on the whole, to get their foot in the door and achieve an even playing field. Diversity in the workplace and in schools is a legitimate state interest.

[/ QUOTE ]

Craig has a point here although he doesn't really make what I think is a key point: These disparities indicate the existence of agency problems in a lot of these companies. It is the responsibility of those in the hiring department of these companies to make decisions that maximize shareholder wealth, they are clearly not doing so.

However, it is the responsibility of the owners to ensure that their hiring department hires the right people at the right price. It is their responsibility and they are being punished by not making as much money as they could. The costs are internalized, the incentives are correct.

There is no inherent value to "diversity" (for most companies), but the lack of it probably implies a lack of hiring efficiency.

Companies would benefit from an increased focus on being meritocratic. The idea of legislated affirmative action at private firms makes me sick.

[/ QUOTE ]
I'm not sure I follow you. Are you implying that companies ought to seek out these groups of applicants and pay them their "market price" rather than their true value in order to please their shareholders?

If so, I disagree, but it probably gets into a capitalism debate which is a whole different box of marbles.

[craigthedeac]

xorbie:
[ QUOTE ]
I used to be anti-affirmative action, but I've warmed up to it a bit. The problem, basically, is that (for college acceptance, at any rate), there just isn't enough individual attention given to applications to get the benefits of AA without the drawbacks.

I think some very moderate AA along with other more helpful programs is the way to go. GTech, for example, improved its minority student % just using outreach programs, which are more costly but vastly more effective.

[/ QUOTE ]
Would you mind going into a bit more detail, especially what you mean by: "there just isn't enough individual attention given to applications to get the benefits of AA without the drawbacks."?

Also, more moderate programs are interesting and relevant to the discussion. Perhaps you could go into more detail there as well.

[SNOWBALL]

[ QUOTE ]
Affirmative Action FTL



[/ QUOTE ]

how come you rule so much?

[Dan.]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Affirmative Action FTL



[/ QUOTE ]

how come you rule so much?

[/ QUOTE ]

Just lucky I guess
[img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img]

[natedogg]

I believe that anyone who supports affirmative action by definition must hold in contempt the concept of individual liberty.

natedogg

[TomCollins]

This debate is getting very very long. I am really unable to fully respond to very long posts while at work, so my response time may be fairly slow. I intend to simplify the debate in the next post.

[ojc02]

[ QUOTE ]
I'm not sure I follow you. Are you implying that companies ought to seek out these groups of applicants and pay them their "market price" rather than their true value in order to please their shareholders?

If so, I disagree, but it probably gets into a capitalism debate which is a whole different box of marbles.

[/ QUOTE ]

No no no, I'm saying that companies should pay the minimum they can for a given ability level. The implication of what you were saying was that companies are paying more for white males of a given ability level than they are for a minority candidate of the same ability. I think an example would demonstrate my point nicely. If you have a Black female candidate (BF) and a white male candidate (WM) of the same level then you should pay them the minimum you can to get them to work for you. If the going rate for the BF is $20/hr and the going rate for WM is $40/hr then rationally you should hire the BF for $21/hr to ensure that they will work for you. More companies (behaving rationally) will continue to do this and the salaries will equalize somewhere in between, depending on the proportion of BF : WM.

So, I'm not saying they should pay them their "true value". I'm saying they should maximize their profit and if they do, the best situation for all will result. Affirmative action is unnecessary, meritocracy FTW.

[craigthedeac]

[ QUOTE ]
This debate is getting very very long. I am really unable to fully respond to very long posts while at work, so my response time may be fairly slow. I intend to simplify the debate in the next post.

[/ QUOTE ]
Good idea, I attempted to start to condense the debate at the end of my post which would be a good starting point.

[Utah]

[ QUOTE ]
I believe that anyone who supports affirmative action by definition must hold in contempt the concept of individual liberty.

natedogg

[/ QUOTE ]Finally someone gets to the heart of the matter. imo - all the arguments made in the debate seem silly and secondary compared to the concept of individual liberty. I don't know how you can debate AA without discussing the core principle.

[Utah]

Agreed upon definition:

[ QUOTE ]
"A policy or a program that seeks to redress past discrimination through active measures to ensure equal opportunity, as in education and employment."

[/ QUOTE ]

Craig's comment:
[ QUOTE ]
Diversity in the workplace and in schools is a legitimate state interest.

[/ QUOTE ]

How does one go from correcting past discrimination and ensuring equal opportunity to arguing that diversity in a legitimate interest? It would appear that you are using AA to push a different ideal. I think that either you need to change your definition of AA or you need to drop this argument.

Just curious, "should the NBA and NFL actively try and recruit more Whites and Asians to play in their leagues? Surely, these groups are underrepresented on a massive scale. It certainly would seem silly to go hire a bunch of short Asian players to play in the NBA because we know they would not be as good as the players currently playing. Yet, couldn't one argue that diversity is good for the team and a compelling state interest? We would never force sports teams to do this because we understand the purity of competition and the effects are quite obvious. Yet, the AAers have no problem forcing this upon businesses who compete in other areas.