By that logic, we should let companies have explicit policies against certain races cause the market will sort it out... I don't think I've ever heard that "the market" will deal with unfair internal HR policies.

Of course the market will sort it out. Just not in the way you (or anyone) would consider "sorted out". The mistake here is assuming that the market promotes fairness and humanist values.

> don't think I've ever heard that "the market" will deal with unfair internal HR policies.

Really cause that's a boilerplate libertarian argument.

What tech company would be able to attract top workers if it had an explicit policy against a certain race?

The job market, too, is a market.

There's enough "top workers" available in pretty much any kind of social/racial/gender-based group you could delineate, that even companies with explicit discrimination policies can find the talent they need.

The market won't give you the solution you seek; the issue does not impact profitability enough.

A company staffed by racists will by boycotted by the majority of consumers. Its only customers will be other racists.

Plus, most other companies will refuse to supply goods and services to it lest they feel the backlash of catering to racists.

Not exactly a feasible venture.

Like today majority of soft drink consumers boycott Coca Cola?

See e.g. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_Coca-Cola#Investm...

Actual experience has proven beyond doubt that boycotts don't work, and even if a company has blood on its hand, their deeds are quickly forgotten.

Your own link talks about how the drink was boycotted across campuses.

But you can't bring up the Apartheid and not dig through a huge history of companies, countries and people explicity or implicitly supporting it.

Doesn't justify anything of course but Coca-Cola wasn't the only company doing it

> Your own link talks about how the drink was boycotted across campuses.

Didn't change much.

> Doesn't justify anything of course but Coca-Cola wasn't the only company doing it

That's my point, though. Plenty of companies have engaged in abhorrent acts, with little meaningful consequences to them. The market is not good at solving these types of problems.

One doesn't get a fat paycheck just because they are intrinsically awesome. One gets a fat paycheck because turnover costs, especially opportunity costs, are higher.

Government regulation is actually the culprit here.

Google is being sued by the Department of Labor for violating a gender discrimination regulation: https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2017/apr/07/google-pa...

These companies behavior has nothing to do with the free market. It is a response to government regulation.

People being up in arms about this issue is exactly 'the market punishing or rewarding Google accordingly'.

That said, don't expect the market to give you a solution that's fair to people - the only one you'll get is the one of maximum profitability under implicit rules of the current culture. Those are very much not the same things.

To be fair, 'the market' is much less strictly economic now – the phrase or even the idea itself, not the network of economic activity (which remains as 'economic' as ever).

Ultimately, the fate of businesses is mostly decided by the economical part of "the market". Looking at how the companies live and die, both in tech industry and outside, I don't believe this issue is significant enough to affect a big organization in a meaningful way.

People get easily outraged - which can and does end up with individuals getting hurt - but they also quickly forget and move to next issue. See also the arguments why boycotts generally don't work.