So are many people without criminal convictions. What's your point? I for one think that, say, the Walton heirs or similar rent-extracting landlord heirs are more of a drain on society than poverty-stricken kids selling drugs or making other bad life choices. Life isn't black and white, and further to the point data shows that rehabilitating criminals delivers better outcomes than shoving them into criminality schools (i.e. prisions), as it should be crushingly obvious by now.
This is true, but I think it's understandable that many employers will see a criminal conviction as a signal and make decisions accordingly.
Is it a lazy approach to hiring? Yes. So is hiring anyone with an MIT degree just because of their credential.
If the signal is imperfect and there are efficient ways to reveal whether the signal is valid or not then some market participant would likely figure out how to exploit that right?
I think what you, the parent post, and the grandparent post are showing is: When the signal indicates a high likelihood of risk involved with hiring someone convicted of nonviolent crimes,
we have a fairly significant flaw in our system.
As other threads have been discussing, if this is the signal that people are receiving, maybe the punishment based system isn’t working and we may want to investigate systems where rehabilitation based systems are seemingly showing more promise. This may help us shift what signals society is receiving.
So are many people without criminal convictions. What's your point? I for one think that, say, the Walton heirs or similar rent-extracting landlord heirs are more of a drain on society than poverty-stricken kids selling drugs or making other bad life choices. Life isn't black and white, and further to the point data shows that rehabilitating criminals delivers better outcomes than shoving them into criminality schools (i.e. prisions), as it should be crushingly obvious by now.