Facebook Follies of Friends and Families

[DGuller]

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.

It's 100% employees for companies that are self-insured.  Garbon asked for an example of when immoral discrimination would be smart, and I gave an example of a company that self-insures its employee medical insurance. 

As for the sick person being a better candidate, now you're just straight out avoiding the discussion.  If you have to respond to "all else being equal" arguments with "but all else is not equal, and a sick employee would be a better candidate", then you really have no response to a statistical argument.  What makes one candidate better over another is a collection of the positive factors and negative factors, and a price tag of an extra $150k is one hell of a negative factor.  If you're arguing that this extra price tag would rationally, laws aside, never make a difference in the hiring decision, then you're handwaving away the issue.  It won't work at convincing other people.

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".

Yes, it is dangerously close, which is why I've been making a point throughout this discussion that tying immorality of discrimination to statistical arguments is a really bad idea.  Some discrimination, including pregnancy discrimination, is just immoral and should be illegal because of that.  If you start trying to justify anti-discrimination laws by an argument that it's statistically stupid to discriminate in certain ways, then you're really hanging the validity of your position on statistics, and that's often a losing proposition.  Then you'll be forced to prove that 1 = 2 with statistics because that's the hill you chose to die on, and people that you're trying to convince will think that the whole concept of anti-discrimination laws is based on lies. 

Keep statistics out of it, statistics is not the end all be all of morality.  In the coming years, we'll have to grapple with the implications of AI models, and what correlations they find and make use of.  If the public discussion of the regulation of AI models will hinge on the argument that data scientists are stupid and have no understanding of correlations and what they imply, then it's not going to be a very productive public discussion.

[Josquius]

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.

Doesnt help too that when they do decide to get a normal job and live in a house you can know them for years and never know they're gypsies.
One of my parents neighbours is a traveller. The only clue is he has a caravan on the drive but then so do my parents. My dad only found out years after living near him when he brought it up one day.

[DGuller]

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.

This is exactly a second valid argument against statistically-justified discrimination (as opposed to the "statisticians don't understand correlations", which is not).  The first argument is that it's just immoral, and frankly that should be enough.  But if you find it not enough to base policy just on moral concepts, then the pragmatic downside of discrimination is that it self-perpetuates the differences you're acting on.  If you deny people economic opportunities because they're statistically higher risks, then you'll be denying them the opportunity to improve their lot and become a lesser statistical risk.

[Admiral Yi]

Some discrimination, including pregnancy discrimination, is just immoral and should be illegal because of that.

Why is this immoral?

[Admiral Yi]

But if you find it not enough to base policy just on moral concepts, then the pragmatic downside of discrimination is that it self-perpetuates the differences you're acting on.  If you deny people economic opportunities because they're statistically higher risks, then you'll be denying them the opportunity to improve their lot and become a lesser statistical risk.

This is based on the premise that socioeconomic status is deterministic of bad behavior,  and that bad behavior is not a choice.

[DGuller]

Some discrimination, including pregnancy discrimination, is just immoral and should be illegal because of that.

Why is this immoral?

Because as society we decided that women should not have their career impacted more than biology requires due to the fact that they're the ones biology chose to carry out pregnancies. 

Yes, I know that "because we said so" is often not a convincing argument, which is why people perform sexual assault on statistics to shore up their case, but really, I think the more productive avenue is to be comfortable with sticking to your moral values without having to reduce them to mathematical theorems.  If your moral values don't come at some cost, then the concept of morality is redundant.

[merithyn]

Some discrimination, including pregnancy discrimination, is just immoral and should be illegal because of that.

Why is this immoral?

Personally, I think it's immoral to expect the other parent to go back to work after just a couple of days. They, like the birth parent, should have a full 6-8 weeks of time to get to know and care for their new child.

[The Brain]

Some discrimination, including pregnancy discrimination, is just immoral and should be illegal because of that.

Why is this immoral?

Personally, I think it's immoral to expect the other parent to go back to work after just a couple of days. They, like the birth parent, should have a full 6-8 weeks of time to get to know and care for their new child.

6-8 weeks sounds like barbarism. But whatever floats your boat.

[Eddie Teach]

Paid leave for pregnancy discriminates against non-parents and against part-time, ineligible workers. We should probably set aside the morality question and focus on practicality.

[alfred russel]

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".

Yes, it is dangerously close,

I actually think it is exactly the same.

Take auto insurance rates. Let AI determine the factors to consider and determine the most efficient rate to charge. Currently things like age, gender, accident history, violation history, place of residence, educational attributes, type of vehicle (including color) and credit score can be used (depending on the jurisdiction).

If you take the law out of it, you could probably also get valuable data out of race, national origin, place of birth, religion, and probably other factors we don't consider acceptable. Maybe even medical statuses such as whether the person is pregnant.

It is somewhat arbitrary regarding what is allowed, and it is entirely dependent on what society accepts. I may be a terrible driver, but because I'm middle aged I get a discount on my auto insurance. If we removed law from the equation, and immigrants from India have accidents at twice the rate of those from Africa, theoretically those from India would get charged a higher rate versus those from Africa.

[Razgovory]

Paid leave for pregnancy discriminates against non-parents and against part-time, ineligible workers. We should probably set aside the morality question and focus on practicality.

Nah.

[Eddie Teach]

Oh sure, let the upper middle class continue to feel entitled to their perks.

[grumbler]

Oh sure, let the upper middle class continue to feel entitled to their perks.

So the fact that poorer people cannot get the benefit means that it is just a perk for the upper middle class?  Kinda like decent food or decent housing?

I notice that the people who moan about maternity leave scream about estate taxes.

[11B4V]

https://m.facebook.com/EditorialCartoons/photos/a.317843708280857/3490518844346645/?type=3&source=44&ref=m_notif&notif_t=feedback_reaction_generic

[Syt]

A 9 months pregnant lady was thrown face first to the ground by Kansas City police and the arresting police officer knelt on her back while she was down.

Now, I don't know if the arrest was justified or not. That said, there must be a way without physically abusing a heavily pregnant woman like this.

Or, as my sister says:

The person to blame for her situation is her herself. If she would have listened to the police and stay away she would be free.....but no she just couldn't keep her mouth shut and stay out of the police's way.