Originally Posted by
wufwugy
To begin, we have to think in terms of aggregates. The majority of racist employers live in regions where they would lose their livelihoods if they were perceived as running a racist company. By this alone, we would find that the vast majority of them would not act on their racism in hiring, and the small handful of holdouts would go out on their bankrupted shields.
A small minority live in places where there is enough of a niche for racism that they could survive (or perhaps grow business) by being viewed as racist. However, this quantity is much smaller than people think. Regardless, let's imagine a scenario in some backwater where racism sells and a racist company gets more sales than before it was viewed as racist.
In this case, the region would have increased emigration from the negatively affected (both labor and capital) as well as decreased immigration (also both labor and capital). While it would have some immigration favoring the racism, because most people do not favor racism and because many who do would not pay much of a cost to favor it, the net would be emigration. Our racist company would lose some because of this but let's assume that it gains by net due to even bigger sales increase from the local racist customers than its increased costs from the capital/labor flight. However, the racist patrons of the company would lose out since most of them would be more negatively affected by the capital/labor flight. The region would experience a reduction in both aggregate demand and aggregate supply (big recession coming), and as long as it kept on its racist path, it would become a shitpot. Then our grandchildren, decades from now, would be talking about how the last ardent racists died in a shitpot that nobody outside that shitpot cared about.