That's the tip of the ice burg. There is also the American's with Disabilities Act, Civil Rights Act, and others that combined make it incredibly expensive to employ labor.
Assuming your incredulity is not disingenuous. Is it news to you that companies have insurance and that insurance cost a lot of money. The larger your labor force is, the more likely you are to be sued under those acts. That raises the cost of insurance. Whether you agree with the Acts or not, increased costs is a simple concept.
What part of "quantify" is unclear? When you say "incredibly expensive", you are definitely making a quantitative assertion and I don't think it's unreasonable to ask what that really is.
I don't mean to suggest I'm immune to evidence against my prejudices, but I am doubtful enough I'm not going to do my own research right now.
I hate false precision, so I'm not asking for that either. Just, like, what do you think the cost of those things is in percentage points, to one or two significant figures and why?
If you run a business or something (I don't) where you have first hand knowledge, I would expect you would immediately know numbers.
You doubt it is incredibly expensive or you doubt it has any costs at all?
> If you run a business or something (I don't) where you have first hand knowledge, I would expect you would immediately know numbers.
Even if I do run a business(which I have). Insurance companies do not itemize the premiums paid by which external factors affect the amount. A person cannot quantify the factors that affect this. Literally anything in the world can happen. The actuaries calculate what they can based on past and future costs to the best of their ability.
Each one of those companies either paid up front or through insurance. When the insurance company is forced to pay out on your behalf, your premiums will likely go up. There are actions that can be taken to mitigate this. Some companies choose to have discrimination awareness campaigns as an example. This helps in two ways. It shows the insurance company that you are less of a risk, therefore your cost goes down. It also gives you evidence in court for your next suit to persuade a jury that you are not discriminating. These campaigns cost money.
You may say, "well, they would not have incurred the cost if they did not discriminate". However, lawsuits can be filed where no discrimination existed. They still cost companies "incredible" amounts of money. Either way, before the CRA, a person could not file a lawsuit based on discrimination and now they can. So costs necessarily have to increase. Even if discrimination was non existent, lawsuits would still be filed, because their is a lot of money to be made.
"Insurance companies do not itemize the premiums paid by which external factors affect the amount"
Of course not. You can still estimate numbers to your own satisfaction though, and according to my idea of logic you must have done that in order to call them incredibly large, even in a very rough sense.
I have no particular standard of evidence I'm trying to impose on you; I'm just asking for what convinced you of your opinion that complying with civil rights laws is incredibly expensive. As long as your opinion is genuine, you are able to share its basis.
People get too hung up on fighting over whose standards evidence must meet, and I think in a lot of cases, better communication would happen by simply looking within and honestly saying "this is why I think X and you make up your own mind".
> I have no particular standard of evidence I'm trying to impose on you; I'm just asking for what convinced you of your opinion that complying with civil rights laws is incredibly expensive. As long as your opinion is genuine, you are able to share its basis.
Were the individual examples listed in my link not evidence of increased costs? I define those as incredible costs. Do you understand how insurance works?
Your mind is made up it seems, but there’s no need to accuse the person above of ignorance.
Your example linked “ 5 Big Companies Sued for Racial Discrimination”. An article showing small businesses being sued/settling for discrimination would support your argument much better imo.
