|
|
 Originally Posted by Renton
Whenever you ignore an economic reality for moral reasons you've hurt the economy. Risk assessment is extremely important to running a business, and maternity leave risk needs to be reconciled, one way or the other.
I'm pretty sure with all of the anti-discrimination laws that exist for handicaps (both mental and physical), agism, etc. that we could find an insane amount of examples where the law forces employers to make employment decisions that would be non-optimal on an open market. Earlier in this post you distinguished between risks that are taken on because of a pure biologic observation vs other logistical disadvantages, but given the quoted sentence I have no idea how that's relevant to your point and only seems to serve to make the female discussion unique, when it isn't according to your central argument.
Anyway, all I can say is that I disagree that there's no moral imperative that's worth sacrificing the economy for. This isn't really something that can be argued with facts or numbers, and I dread saying something that's so rhetorical as the sentence I'm tempted to say to sum up my thoughts on it. But I suppose there's no other direction for this post to go in:
I think it's worth forcing employers to make ever-so-slightly sub-optimal decisions in order to give 50% of our population equal access to (uuugggggghhhh) the "American dream."
Okay, I'm gonna go take a bath now.
PS: There are variants of the modest proposal that lead to more optimal economic results that we don't allow for because it goes against moral imperative.
|
Reply With Quote
