"Discrimination" presupposes there are not enough good jobs for everyone

We are told that employment discrimination is a bad thing and should be illegal.
But doesn't that presuppose that there are not enough of the better jobs for everybody?

And if that is true, if there are a limited number of the better jobs that exist, then wouldn't it also be true that immigration - adding more people - is going to result in fewer of those good jobs being available?

Isn't immigration going to do the same thing that employment discrimination does?

This does seem to be a huge little economic inconsistency that the ideology on the Left has.

 

Immigrants need things too, increasing demand for jobs. And since immigrants might need specific things, they can bring with them the knowledge of what they need. Add in access to credit and then you get new businesses to help accommodate. Which means more jobs available.

 

No. its not about the 'better' job, its about the job an applicant wanted to get. If he just aspires to be a grocer at the market on 5th and Cedar, because that is what the best deli section is, at the store close enough to his church and home, and near enough he can bike to it and get home in time to see his son drop off to sleep, then he does not want to fail, because he's black or gay or because the employer won't hire an immigrant from China.

Its not about how hard it is to get the job, or how many applicants there are, its about the reason he's being turned away.

So why do you hate the immigrant from China enough not to let him to compete fairly for that same job if that is the one that will let see his son drop off to sleep if he aspires to be a grocer and rides a bike?

 

Sounds like more people with less money. What type of jobs are those going to create?

Sounds like you are saying more poor people will need to borrow money, so the big banks will benefit.

 

The ones that help expand access to credit. They might not pay a lot but within a localized context pay enough. Which over time accumulates value.

 

So you're saying there are still other better jobs out there. That the applicant who is being discriminated against could still find another good job out there, if he just looked somewhere else.

If that's true, then sounds to me like that applicant is unlikely to be economically hurt if he is discriminated against.

Why does the "reason" matter? Isn't the question whether they are being economically harmed?

 

Nice try. You might technically be accurate, with that example, but your overall argument there seems very absurd and tenuous.

As the expression goes, "unable to see the forest through the trees".

 

Well I’m going to assume that’s checkmate. Good morning Kaz how is your morning so far?

 

I was just pointing out the inconsistency of the Left. That when it comes to worries about "discrimination", they will stick to the idea that there are not enough of the good jobs available to everyone (that discrimination is responsible for poverty, etc), but then when it comes to the issue of immigration, they seem to do a complete 180, there will be plenty enough good jobs for everyone.

Obviously both arguments cannot both be true, because they conflict/contradict with each other.

 

No, you have it backwards. The 'economic hardship' is about taking any job to pay the bills, not the job that will make someone happier and that they are qualified for. It definitely matters if the 'why, is about their melanin level, or their religion, or their gender, or their orientation because those are not things that they can head to school or to apprenticeships or just practice the relevent skills to improve enough to crab the next opportunity.

Again why do you hate the Chinese, or French or Mexican immigrant so much that you don't want him to get a job that he wants, or the one that works best his life? Why do you want to discriminate against immigrants?

 

The point is, are there enough of these good jobs or not?

That is irrelevant. If there are not enough decent jobs, then sending everyone to tertiary school and giving them degrees is not going to create more of them.

(In fact education is often a form of discrimination. Or at least a screening mechanism that employers use)

 

Now this discussion has gotten stupid. Discrimination has NOTHING to do with how many jobs are out there, and it offers no excuse or justification for an employer to point to high employment statistics and refuse to hire a qualified applicant who is Christian for a firefighter position, because he can't stand Christians. Kazenatzu, you are not stupid. The man applied at the firestation because he wants to be a firefighter and is trained as a firefighter, and has experience in that profession, and is staring at a local job of his dreams in the town he is living in, not an airline pilot or a surgeon, or an accountant. He does not give a **** how many of those want ads are online.

Please address why you insist on refusing to hire an immigrant, if he is lawfully living in the United States and lawfully allowed to work, and is qualified for a job? Do not ignore this question. You are the one who seems to feel an immigrant from another country or culture, has a lesser right to equal treatment in employment because this entire thread is a rationalization for treated immigrants as second class.

 

That's a bad example, because a firefighter is a government job.

So you are basically admitting that if someone gets discriminated against, there are plenty of other employers they can go to who will not discriminate. Is that correct?

The only time they MIGHT be hurt is if a certain employer has a monopoly on all the business in the area, but even then there is the possibility they could look in a different area, or try to enter some different job field that pays just as much.

 

If there are enough jobs for everyone, then that immigrant could just find another job with someone else, couldn't they?

 

Not the job he sought, the job he has trained for, the job that suits him and his needs. Here's the good news, though. You the employer, who decides to discriminate against people based on such vile criteria and breaking the law, could instead, first, hire the legal immigrant from Mexico and then quit your own job in and then' just find another' job, working elsewhere!

He should not have to. You, the bigot, should.

 

So what? That particular specific job might suit someone else's needs.

This seems like it is all about "fairness" rather than causing actual economic harm.

 

Its actually about you rationalizing blatant discrimination based on whatever criteria you find convenient. You can't possibly know whether your discriminatory behavior helps or hurts anyone, and you don't care.

A basic premise of market economics is that the worker is in the best shape to know his needs, his abilities, and his desires and those who are dependent on him. Not you, him. He has applied for a specific job to meet those needs, that he feels qualified for, and you are denying them based your animus against his status as an immigrant, based on the likelihood he can get some sort of job, doing something, somewhere, sometime soon and you have decided that a single economic indicator stat will provide you your justification.

The civil rights laws do not permit you to defend your action based on that single economic indicator stat, because it is speculative, and irrelevant. He wants the job he applied for. If you don't want to work with him because he is an immigrant from another country, then you can hire him, give your two weeks notice to the company, and feel all cozy and comfy about your decision and your risk because that unemployment stat will work for you. Its your screwy thinking, you live by that sword you are picking up to stab him with.

Here's a nice list to guide you https://www.careeronestop.org/toolkit/careers/careers-most-openings.aspx.

I have been far, far too patient with this garbage you are peddling, We are done here.

 

Shouldn't that be a business owner's right? You are trying to force this on them. Not just that, but second guess the motivations behind their routine decision-making. You know full well how easy it could be for an employer to get punished even though they did nothing wrong. Because you can't read minds.

You're just being emotional here. If one person wants to discriminate against them, there are plenty of others they can go to.

Unless there's not. (But you can't make that argument without severely damaging the argument for immigration)

You're just making a partial truth there; and then trying to use that partial truth in a blatantly disingenuous and misleading way. It's a decision between the worker and the employer. It's about the worker, yes, but equally about the employer.

And he can get that job. SOMEWHERE ELSE.
If there is so much job opportunity, why does that one employer have to be forced to give him the job?

You do realize I wasn't even talking about an employer discriminating against someone because they are an immigrant?
But sure, if you want to talk about, it just makes my argument all the stronger.

I hope you realize that NONE of your arguments have really addressed the point I was making in the opening post.

 

Once I say I am done, Kaz, that means I think I am engaged in a discussion that can provide no merit, no benefit, no value. For practical impact, the post above, I did not read, because I have worked very hard to discipline myself not to. Done means done. I hope there is more to be gained in our next exchange. Have a nice night.

 

You never addressed the point in the opening post. You pretty much deflected from the quagmire and tried to claim that discrimination laws were not about a lack of economic opportunity for everyone. In other words, you conceded that there are enough jobs for everyone, and that anyone who is discriminated against can just find another job elsewhere because there are enough jobs elsewhere.

This post isn't for you, it's for everyone else reading this.

 

it proposes that the good jobs at a given company should not be only given to a certain race or gender

but as more and more jobs go overseas, people will blame others for their lack of a good job

 

while I suggest people consume less, stay out of debt

the reality is, our economy is built on consumerism, and if everyone does the smart thing.... our economy crashes

 

That sounds like we have built an unsustainable system. There is something wrong with it.

Can you ever make a comment that will not result in us going off-topic, FreshAir?

 

that’s capitalism

if I was off topic, it's cause your post was off topic and that was what I was replying too

that said, it was basicly on topic

 

I'd argue mass immigration, globalism, and severe and chronic long term trade imbalances have more to do with it.
Not sure it is fair to blame "capitalism" itself.

But that would be a topic for another thread.