Anti-Discriminatory Laws that Discriminate- Conclusion

In a free market it is almost impossible to discriminate against without accruing losses. I believe a private business owner has every right to discriminate against people on bases of sex, race, looks, and any other reason you can think of to discriminate. Why do I support this? Because the business owner that discriminates will be out of business quicker than Joey Chestnut can down 59 hot dogs.

In past posts I have covered ways that government intends to rid our nation of discrimination but in such efforts actually screw everything up. Today I would like to explain why in a "true" free market, it cost to discriminate. I did not say that all discrimination will be gotten rid of (we are human and not perfect). However, a free market is the best way to put cost on people who do discriminate. Throughout the history of the world many people such as the Jews and the Chinese have been discriminated against and forced out of the country by government laws and restrictions that allowed the discrimination to be protected for political gain. And then miraculously years later the Politicians see how important these people were to society and relent and let them back in and in fact entice them to come back because society does not function as well without them. This is what happens in free markets.

The reason this happens is that "political systems give expression to beliefs, often at negligible cost, while economic systems are constrained by the hard realities and thus impost substantial costs for being wrong and confer substantial benefits for being right" according to Thomas Sowell. Japanese immigrants in the U.S. in the early twentieth century were initially paid less that white workers doing the same work in agricultural. They were being discriminated against. In reality the Japanese workers were harder workers and were considered a better investment for employers. Once this was noticed the gap not only closed but the Japanese were actually paid more. Why? Because free markets do not depend upon the goodwill of those making the transactions. They will usually act in accordance to what benefits them the most. No NBA owner would draft a white player over a black player because he is racist when the black player is obviously better. If he did his team would always lose, he would lose fans, and he would lose money. He had better buy a hockey team instead!

Look at this best example. Does anyone think that there were racist right after the Civil War? Uhhh Yah!! After the war white SOUTHERN employers and landowners tried to band together to keep black laborers pay down. This was in fact perfectly legal at the time (as it should be today). These plans were even written about in the southern press. It was not a secret, they were former slaves for crying out loud! Lets look at the facts: blacks were illiterate, inexperienced, unorganized, and the law had no concern for their rights. The white employers had every advantage. Yet black income rose at a higher rate than white income in the generation after the Civil War. Illiterate workers, unable to count money, knew when friends and relatives were living better on the same pay. White employers and landowner who paid more and had better working and living conditions found themselves with a large supply of black applicants. This gave them more options and could hire the best of all black workers. Those employers attempting to take full advantage of these black workers found themselves having great trouble getting people to work for them. These former slaves were still paid less than white workers. That is until they had gained experience and with the natural tendency to work hard that was built in them during slavery, their rates actually continued to grow faster than whites. This ended only when white populist radical politicians led movements against banks and corporations sympathetic to blacks who worked hard and were paid high rates. If the Constitution is protected and thus the government could not discriminate and create laws that discriminated, the free market with competition would have continued to work.

The fact is that in a free market you can, if you choose, not hire black workers as an employer, but you are at a disadvantage if the other owners hire workers who are black and better workers. If politicians would worry about protecting our rights in a free market without laws that discriminate as we had years ago, or laws today that try to right all the past wrongs, then people would learn why today on average black workers make less than whites on average. More blacks get jobs earlier in life without acquiring human capital like education and higher skill work experience. Many are single fathers with kids living with mothers and thus do not work as many hours without a family to raise. And most who do go to college study subjects that are easier and are less paying jobs such as education. When you compare "descriptions" of workers such as age, education, type of education, experience, marital situation and other specifics, you will see that there is little if any discrimination going on. In fact, in 1980 a married black couple with a college education made more on average than the same description of a white couple.

Lets focus on economics which deals with the reality that decisions have costs. If we do this and not have politicians get involved, the people who discriminate will pay for it, not the innocent person who have to deal with stupid government policies that redistribute the costs to people who do not choose to discriminate and in many cases are the ones already being discriminated against.