Imagine a society where people born in March are discriminated against. People are reluctant to give them jobs, pay them less, don't want them as tenants etc.
Do you believe the people born in the other eleven months would do better in such a society?
If that example isn't obvious enough, imagine removing the state of Colorado from the US. Is that good for Illinois?
Obviously not, because, on average, people contribute as much as they take (by definition). For every job-taker, there is a consumer spending enough to make that job worthwhile. Removing people for arbitrary reasons just shrinks the economy.
It seems like it would be good for non-March people, I'm not sure why the opposite is "obvious". For example if you're applying for an apartment and the other potential tenant is born in March, you'd an advantage even if you have a lower credit score- assuming we live in our current supply-constrained world, where housing is very zero-sum.
For a more extreme example, think of a situation where everyone born in March is sold into servitude, but only people born in February are allowed to own them. Is this good for people born in March? Obviously not. Is it good for people born in February? Absolutely, they'd be able to financially benefit from their newfound privilege. Is it good for people born in the other 10 months? Probably not, people born in March would skew the market for remaining jobs
> Imagine a society where people born in March are discriminated against. People are reluctant to give them jobs, pay them less, don't want them as tenants etc.
> Do you believe the people born in the other eleven months would do better in such a society?
Having an exploitable underclass can absolutely improve the standing of the rest of a society.
Whether it’s a long-term advantage depends on whether the cost (ethical, and lost contributions of the marginalized subclass) exceeds the benefits.
This also has no relevance to the study; what you’re asking involves questions of equality of opportunity, not attempting to engineer equality of outcome.
> If that example isn't obvious enough, imagine removing the state of Colorado from the US.
Do you believe the people born in the other eleven months would do better in such a society?
If that example isn't obvious enough, imagine removing the state of Colorado from the US. Is that good for Illinois?
Obviously not, because, on average, people contribute as much as they take (by definition). For every job-taker, there is a consumer spending enough to make that job worthwhile. Removing people for arbitrary reasons just shrinks the economy.