Fortunately, in America we don't believe discrimination is acceptable, and we've codified that principle in the law.
Apparently, in America, its more important to appear to be virtuous than to actually do good.
The law of unintended consequences.
https://www.jstor.org/stable/pdf/146368.pdf?seq=1#page_scan_...
>On average over the post-ADA period, employment of men with disabilities was 7.2 percentage points lower than before the act was passed. In addition, wages of disabled men did not change with the passage of the ADA.
http://www.law.harvard.edu/programs/olin_center/papers/pdf/J...
This one is long, and they do mention some positive impact on education later. Didn't read that far though.
>while relative disabled employment declined significantly just after the ADA’s enactment in states in which these provisions were a substantial innovation relative to the pre-ADA state-level employment discrimination regime, relative disabled employment was stable in states with ADA-like employment discrimination regimes in place prior to the ADA’s enactment
Non-exhaustive search, but the data seems to indicate that ADA reduced employment for the disabled shortly after inception. I'm not certain on the longer term effects (those are also much more annoying to model here).
It's perfectly acceptable to not allow someone to rent an apartment because they have a criminal history, or a poor financial or employment history. It's also acceptable for American Express to not issue black cards to people who don't make a million dollars a year.
We have codified some traits that we do not allow discrimination based on, but generally speaking, discrimination is acceptable. Unless you change the general definition of "discrimination" to the legal one, which would seem to make the argument circular (i.e. we have banned discrimination where discrimination is the things we have banned).
