> 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.
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.
This is a faulty analogy.