See Paul Sperry's piece: Obama collecting personal data for a secret race database.
Given Obama's views you will not be surprised to learn that the purpose is to more aggressively pursue disparate impact cases. Never mind that disparate impact can hurt those who it is intended to help or that it makes society less meritocratic.
I see this report against a backdrop of decline in self employment and a lower rate of business formation and growth in average company size. If the US government undermines meritocratic hiring then that might give a push in the direction of more people working in smaller companies. But if the economies of scale are growing strongly for other reasons then less meritocratic hiring might just make companies less efficient. They might respond by doing more hiring abroad.
If disparate impact enforcement forces banks to lend more money at lower rates to groups that default more often we can expect higher borrowing costs and maybe a reduction in consumer credit. That might be a net benefit. I think our current levels of consumer debt are unhealthy and the people borrowing a lot are hurting their own prospects. We'd be better off if far fewer had credit cards.
What I wonder: will the tech elite that is now one of the most powerful forces in the Democratic Party get sufficiently incensed at the costs of disparate impact to politically revolt against the doctrine and seek to get courts to restrict its use? They'd need to first change the mix of people working as reporters and commentators to bring about a big shift in reporting on this issue. They could do it. Michael Bloomberg, Jeff Bezos, and other big money figures have control over big pieces of the press.
|Share |||By Randall Parker at 2015 July 18 07:22 PM|