Facebook Follies of Friends and Families

[garbon]

Perhaps have another go with a premise that involves an actual fact.

Do you think that would make clear what "assume for the sake of argument" means?

You said that calling such a pattern of behavior of response bigotry as it can be a perfectly rational response based on probabilities. You asked Malthus (us?) to consider for the sake of argument a scenario where black people are more likely to shoplift than white people. And then told us it would be rational in such a circumstance for security to pay more attention to black customers than white.

Now, you said 'assume for the sake of argument' which I guess means you thought posters should ignore considerations about truth content in the premise and just look at your conclusion. But that isn't a magical talisman and people are likely to reject the entire argument if you mention something that is so clearly an example of the topic at hand (how bigoted policies are defended) as well as far removed from reality (it isn't rational to be following a black person such as myself around a store as I've no personal history of stealiing nor reason to do so).

So as I said a premise that contains an actual fact would be preferrable as it would prevent such an outright rejection of your argument. In truth though, I'm not sure that there is a premise based in fact that would lead to your conclusion that the definition of bigotry used by some is to 'require others to pretend that true facts are not true facts.'

[The Brain]

In Sweden you don't normally tell store employees your personal history supported by evidence.

[DGuller]

The problem with your example is that it shows precisely the kind of bigotry we are talking about.  "If we assume for the sake of argument that blacks are X% more likely to shoplift than whites" is a bigoted assumption because it assumes that the reason that a given person might shoplift is because of the color of their skin.

It actually doesn't assume that.  Profiling does not require causation to have non-zero effectiveness, it only requires correlation.  That "correlation is not causation" thing is not always relevant.

It actually does.  It assumes that the color of a person's skin correlates with a propensity to steal, and, conversely, that a person's propensity to steal is determined by their skin color.  Neither of these is true.  Propensity to steal is associated with SES, and blacks are disproportionately low SES, but that says not a thing about a random black person who is not low SES.  If stores look for the bums, rather than looking for the blacks, they will avoid racial profiling and crime both.

Correlations are transitive.  If A is correlated to B, and B is correlated to C, then A is typically correlated to C, although more weakly than either of the first two correlations.  You're assuming that every other factor for which race proxies is perfectly observable, just as easily as race itself.  That's an assumption so removed from reality that it's useless for discussions of racism. 

The problem with race is that it's the most easily observable quality, apart from maybe gender, whereas people's personal circumstances are not so easily observable.  People don't walk around with five years of income tax statements taped to their foreheads, so your profiling of their income status based on their appearance isn't going to be perfect either, even if it were the one and only causative predictor of theft propensity.

[DGuller]

Employers can't discriminate based on someone's health or disability.

Is it smart to not want to hire someone on this grounds?

Employers, especially large ones, self-insure the medical costs that their employees incur, at least up to a point.  Your medical insurance card may say Aetna, but Aetna just provides service, it doesn't bear the insurance risk.  An unhealthy employee is thus going to cost the employer more than a healthy employee, just on that metric alone.  In world with no anti-discrimination laws, it would be smart for your potential employer to take your health status into account as one of the factors when making a hiring decision.

[grumbler]

Would that turn race discrimination into class discrimination? I.e. going from "all blacks are probable thieves" to "all poors are probable thieves"?

No, because noting the fact that poor people are more likely to steal (of necessity, in some cases) isn't "discrimination" in the sense that you seem to mean (i.e. illegal discrimination) but simply discrimination in the plain language sense:  telling two things apart.  It would be interesting to see stats on the total value of things stolen from people below, say, twice the poverty line versus those above it, though.  It would take a lot of poor shoplifters to equal a Bernie Madoff.

No one thinks it is wrong to rent your apartment to the person who can afford it in preference to the person who cannot.

[Admiral Yi]

You said that calling such a pattern of behavior of response bigotry as it can be a perfectly rational response based on probabilities. You asked Malthus (us?) to consider for the sake of argument a scenario where black people are more likely to shoplift than white people. And then told us it would be rational in such a circumstance for security to pay more attention to black customers than white.

Now, you said 'assume for the sake of argument' which I guess means you thought posters should ignore considerations about truth content in the premise and just look at your conclusion. But that isn't a magical talisman and people are likely to reject the entire argument if you mention something that is so clearly an example of the topic at hand (how bigoted policies are defended) as well as far removed from reality (it isn't rational to be following a black person such as myself around a store as I've no personal history of stealiing nor reason to do so).

So as I said a premise that contains an actual fact would be preferrable as it would prevent such an outright rejection of your argument. In truth though, I'm not sure that there is a premise based in fact that would lead to your conclusion that the definition of bigotry used by some is to 'require others to pretend that true facts are not true facts.'

Then assume for the sake of argument that white people shoplift more frequently.  Would it be bigoted to follow them around?

[merithyn]

Employers can't discriminate based on someone's health or disability.

Is it smart to not want to hire someone on this grounds?

Employers, especially large ones, self-insure the medical costs that their employees incur, at least up to a point.  Your medical insurance card may say Aetna, but Aetna just provides service, it doesn't bear the insurance risk.  An unhealthy employee is thus going to cost the employer more than a healthy employee, just on that metric alone.  In world with no anti-discrimination laws, it would be smart for your potential employer to take your health status into account as one of the factors when making a hiring decision.

That's only kind of true.

In the US, 60% of employees are covered on self- insured policies. But there are clauses to prevent self-insured companies from being hit with a massive medical bill called Catastrophic Claims clauses.

What this does is effectively say,  "Company A, you are responsible for all claims EXCEPT when a single employee has a significant bill (usually ~$150k). Then, you cover 100% of everything up to $150k, and 10% of everything over that, and we, the insurance company, will cover the other 90% of that employee's claims completely." I've yet to see a self-insurance contract without that language in it, though there may be. I haven't seen every contract there is.

What that means is that an employee being diagnosed with cancer, or having a long- term illness, won't actually hurt most large companies, which are by far the ones most likely to be self-insured.

The bigger issue is loss of work, short- term disability, and FMLA locking in a position so that you can't replace the missing employee.

[garbon]

You said that calling such a pattern of behavior of response bigotry as it can be a perfectly rational response based on probabilities. You asked Malthus (us?) to consider for the sake of argument a scenario where black people are more likely to shoplift than white people. And then told us it would be rational in such a circumstance for security to pay more attention to black customers than white.

Now, you said 'assume for the sake of argument' which I guess means you thought posters should ignore considerations about truth content in the premise and just look at your conclusion. But that isn't a magical talisman and people are likely to reject the entire argument if you mention something that is so clearly an example of the topic at hand (how bigoted policies are defended) as well as far removed from reality (it isn't rational to be following a black person such as myself around a store as I've no personal history of stealiing nor reason to do so).

So as I said a premise that contains an actual fact would be preferrable as it would prevent such an outright rejection of your argument. In truth though, I'm not sure that there is a premise based in fact that would lead to your conclusion that the definition of bigotry used by some is to 'require others to pretend that true facts are not true facts.'

Then assume for the sake of argument that white people shoplift more frequently.  Would it be bigoted to follow them around?

I don't see how that fixes anything.

And yes, bigoted as again focused on the color of their skin.

Though it seems that would even make less sense as given white people would often comprise the majority of customers, you'd just be asking your security to make sure your customers didn't steal anything.

[DGuller]

Employers can't discriminate based on someone's health or disability.

Is it smart to not want to hire someone on this grounds?

Employers, especially large ones, self-insure the medical costs that their employees incur, at least up to a point.  Your medical insurance card may say Aetna, but Aetna just provides service, it doesn't bear the insurance risk.  An unhealthy employee is thus going to cost the employer more than a healthy employee, just on that metric alone.  In world with no anti-discrimination laws, it would be smart for your potential employer to take your health status into account as one of the factors when making a hiring decision.

That's only kind of true.

In the US, 60% of employees are covered on self- insured policies. But there are clauses to prevent self-insured companies from being hit with a massive medical bill called Catastrophic Claims clauses.

What this does is effectively say,  "Company A, you are responsible for all claims EXCEPT when a single employee has a significant bill (usually ~$150k). Then, you cover 100% of everything up to $150k, and 10% of everything over that, and we, the insurance company, will cover the other 90% of that employee's claims completely." I've yet to see a self-insurance contract without that language in it, though there may be. I haven't seen every contract there is.

What that means is that an employee being diagnosed with cancer, or having a long- term illness, won't actually hurt most large companies, which are by far the ones most likely to be self-insured.

The bigger issue is loss of work, short- term disability, and FMLA locking in a position so that you can't replace the missing employee.

The limit of liability per patient was the "up to a point" part.  But in any case, why wouldn't it hurt an employer to hire someone who costs them $150k in medical insurance costs per year?  You have two candidates for a $50k position; one would cost you $75k per year to employ (let's assume 1.5 multiplier for benefits), and another would cost you $200k+ to employ.  It won't bankrupt the company to make a staffing decision that would cost it 2-3 times the expected cost, but just because it won't hurt them fatally doesn't mean it won't hurt them.

[PDH]

That's why they should hire a woman, they can pay her less.

[merithyn]

The limit of liability per patient was the "up to a point" part.  But in any case, why wouldn't it hurt an employer to hire someone who costs them $150k in medical insurance costs per year?  You have two candidates for a $50k position; one would cost you $75k per year to employ (let's assume 1.5 multiplier for benefits), and another would cost you $200k+ to employ.  It won't bankrupt the company to make a staffing decision that would cost it 2-3 times the expected cost, but just because it won't hurt them fatally doesn't mean it won't hurt them.

It's still only 60% of employees, so barely a majority. And the reason you'd hire the "sick" person over the other is they are the better employee candidate. Just like any other.

This is getting dangerously close to "why would you hire a young woman when there's a not-insignificant chance that she'll go out on maternity leave in the next two-to-five years".

[merithyn]

That's why they should hire a woman, they can pay her less.

[Admiral Yi]

I don't see how that fixes anything.

And yes, bigoted as again focused on the color of their skin.

Though it seems that would even make less sense as given white people would often comprise the majority of customers, you'd just be asking your security to make sure your customers didn't steal anything.

So your understanding of assuming for the sake of argument was fine and dandy, you disagree with my argument because by your definition focusing on skin color (excepting, one assumes, cases such as racial quotas or set-asides) is bigotry.  Fine, we can disagree about that.  I think bigotry requires animus.

Your last objection is not valid.  If whites are 80% of customers and your security focuses on them, you will still catch more shoplifters.

[The Brain]

This is getting dangerously close to "why would you hire a young woman when there's a not-insignificant chance that she'll go out on maternity leave in the next two-to-five years".

Do you think that would change what's under discussion?

[Tamas]

I guess one of the issue is that these society-wide preconceptions tend to become self-fulfilling to some degree. e.g. gypsies have been forcibly kept as a lower class and to this day they have shitty chances getting jobs and proper education. Of course a lot of them end up on the very bottom of society in abject poverty. Of course a disproportionate number of them end up committing petty crimes. Which also means that most interaction between gypsies and whites is in that context (because they are shunned out of other social interactions like workplaces etc), which then means that the stereotypes get reinforced which gets in the way of change etc.