INET has partnered with several leading academics to create a new documentary video series exploring the boundaries of economics and philosophy. A preview is available here. In this first segment, Harvard's Michael Sandel and Harvard's Robert Barro and a group of talented young people discuss; Should retailers and airlines be allowed to discriminate and only hire workers with specific looks or age? If consumers want to be served by attractive people, should for profits be allowed to supply such differentiated products?
The discussion then turns to the social consequences and the morality of these decisions. We know that universities do not hire faculty at random. Should retailers be allowed to hire only specific types of people (such as tall blond blue eyed attractive people)? Is this a form of "lookism" or is this a part of a product's quality? Larry Summers cogently discusses comparative advantage. He makes the point that Harvard hires very smart faculty and the Boston Celtics hire tall people so he isn't bugged if retailers mainly hire attractive people.
This video probes in a subtle way the benefits and costs of screening and non-random assignment.
The young people are arguing that firms such as Abercrombie shift our culture when they mainly hire traditionally looking beautiful people. This retail strategy raises their profits but it unintentionally leads non-traditional looking people to feel like the "out group".
Over 20 years ago, Robert Barro wrote a thought provoking business week column on allowing airlines to screen flight attendants based on their attractiveness. Robert Barro is asked whether some consumers have "bad preferences". Barro takes preferences as given and does not support government mandates to regulate who firms can hire as they attempt to cater to this demand.
Some of the young panelists make the subtle point that over time more women are flying and that for profit firms will shift the demographics of who they hire to meet the demands of their shifting "median consumer". Other members of the panel are not convinced and argue that laws are needed to "move the market" in the morally right direction.
The overall documentary is excellent. I would like to see a deeper discussion here of property rights. Do people have the property right to equal consideration for every job? Do firms have the property right to hire who they want to further their mission? If we believe Gary Becker's work on the economics of discrimination, then in competitive industries another firm will hire a worker who has been denied a job by the discriminator. Competition protects the workers.
Are one's looks a personal attribute that firms can screen on or do we forbid this? What is the difference between brains and beauty? Firms screen on brain power and personality, why can't they screen on beauty?
By blending a subtle discussion of economics and philosophy, INET has opened up an important dialogue.