▲ 40 points
back
8 comments
> "...Then, of course, the restaurants had the tremendous service of the Harvey Girls, who were the face of the operation.” In 1883, Harvey had decided to fire the rowdy male waiters at his restaurant in Raton, New Mexico, and hire respectable young women in their place. Customers responded so positively to the female staff that Harvey began replacing all of his company’s male servers, advertising for women employees in newspapers throughout the Midwestern and Eastern states. Unlike much of the Eastern United States, in small Western outposts, it was acceptable for single young women to work and live away from their parents—though they were often stigmatized as being prostitutes or sexually promiscuous. Harvey had no trouble finding suitable young women, despite the perception that the Wild West would scare them off. In fact, many women jumped at the opportunity for economic independence, adventure, and travel in an era when their prospects were greatly limited. “A lot of them came for the chance to see a different part of the country,” Melzer says. “After six months at a Harvey House, you could be transferred, so even if you started in a small place like Belen, New Mexico, you might eventually get to Santa Fe or to the Grand Canyon. Others came for the money, hoping to send it home to their families, save for their education, or maybe open a business themselves someday.”...Despite the often-patronizing rules, women working for Fred Harvey developed a kind of collegiate sisterhood, a community that maintained its bonds long after members had quit working as Harvey Girls. “I read the obituaries every day, and when a former Harvey Girl dies, they always mention it,” Melzer says. “It’s like being in the Green Berets—it was something they were really proud of because it was respected and admired.”
This is an interesting example of taste-based discrimination vs statistical discrimination. To see whether instances of discrimination represent mere prejudice or rational decision-making, one can simply ask: could you make money by not engaging in that discrimination? As Alan Greenspan discovered in hiring women in the '60s, and Harvey in the 1880s, the answer in their eras was: yes. So it was taste-based discrimination / sexism.
Singapore Airlines has a close equivalent of the "Harvey Girls." They're called the "Singapore Girls."[0] Like the "Harvey Girls," the brand has received its share of sexism allegations. SIA also has a list of required applicant qualities that probably wouldn't fly in the US, such as requiring candidates to have natural eyebrows and have black or brown hair.
In line with the above poster's observation, Singapore Airlines has profited from this "taste-based discrimination." They're constantly one of the highest-rated airlines. Yet despite taste-based discrimination employed by Asian airlines such as EVA, SIA, and ANA, I would much rather fly on an Asian carrier than on American-based airline for the same money. Interestingly enough, EVA via Evergreen and ANA via Intercontinental also collaborate in hospitality programs.
You are misunderstanding what I mean by taste-based discrimination. SA is doing the same thing that old American airlines used to do, and the same thing that many other airlines do. National or heavily regulated airlines have a hard time competing on cost, so they instead compete on amenities, like stewardesses who are easy on the eyes, or fancy meals. So such 'discrimination' is no more surprising, nor taste-based discrimination, than actresses being pretty. After deregulation of American airlines, the stereotype of stewardesses as being attractive disappeared quickly... The question is, can another Singaporean airline compete and make money, under the same circumstances, by hiring the perfectly-competent-but-not-so-attractive women that SA refuses to hire? I'm guessing no.
> To see whether instances of discrimination represent mere prejudice or rational decision-making, one can simply ask: could you make money by not engaging in that discrimination?
Make any money, or the same money? Also is statistical discrimination better than taste-based?
A racist restaurant-owner might, for example, live in a fairly racist town and decide that not hiring Black people or even not allowing Black customers would increase the amount of money he makes, since in this racist town White people might not like to mingle.
So he could still make money in this scenario, just a lot less of it.
Would you consider that statistical discrimination?
I believe that lots of business owners used this very rationalization in the Southern United States, in bygone eras.
> Also is statistical discrimination better than taste-based?
Yes, it is. It leads to fewer costs and more efficiency. Jobs need to be matched with the best candidates at the least overhead, and statistical discrimination is important here. Can highschool dropouts be great programmers? Of course, but if you need a programmer, you're better off interviewing the people with CS degrees before the dropouts...
> Would you consider that statistical discrimination?
Yes. If you want to use black people as an example, you can note that a lot of the disparity in arrest and crime rates are directly traceable to them committing more crimes due to factors like being poorer and less educated etc (http://slatestarcodex.com/2014/11/25/race-and-justice-much-m...). Once you adjust for these factors, a lot of the 'racism' goes away. Or consider the infamous example of 'women make 85 cents for every dollar men make'...
> I believe that lots of business owners used this very rationalization in the Southern United States, in bygone eras.
And they were right. Their job was to run their business as best as they could. If they decided they wanted to become a anti-racism activist and incur thousands or millions of dollars of losses, that is their right, just as it was their right to not engage in expensive activism and destroy their business, and just as it is your right to not sign a check for $100,000 to the NAACP and mail it off right this instant. I suspect you are exercising this right, so I hope you will not blame them too harshly for exercising their rights too.
Valid points all around and I agree with them.
Very libertarian viewpoint considering the current atmosphere of knee-jerk liberalism.
I do concede that government oversight is sometimes necessary to protect society from unscrupulous businesses willing to hurt people for money, but in general, the "market" will correct a capitalist mistake.
The La Posada hotel in Winslow,AZ is gorgeous and is slowly being restored to its former glory. A great place to stay if you want to check out Meteor Crater and the Petrified Forest
While flipping through channels in a hotel, I found this documentary about the Harvey Girls -- pretty decent:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z9y5mNE5q2E