[Nadya]

Absolutely terrible example.

The TV show created many jobs (producers, editors, filmers, the 'assistant' (spokesperson...) position being fought for) and those who were "fired" (never really hired to begin with, were they?) failed to meet the job requirement. Which was to be the best business-person. A meritocracy, as things should be, rather than being based on race/gender/filling some sort of diversity quota.

In reality they became spokespeople when they won. But that wasn't what the show was about or portrayed. Trump was portrayed as the "hard/rough" sort of boss and the "You're fired." was just the slogan/catchphrase which worked wonderfully as a TV catchphrase/slogan. It was short, memorable, and people knew where it was from.

There was a whole lot more creation than destruction....

[deadringerr]

You're right, my comment was hyperbolic and too tongue-in-cheek to not be called out. TV shows do employ people, that's certainly inarguable and, the season ends with employment of the winner, regardless of how inaccurate the job description. I personally don't find any reality TV shows constructive other than propping up their own market.

[cabinguy]

He didn't create or own the show. He was an employee.

[Nadya]

The argument put forward still doesn't work, especially with that being the case, but thank you for the knowledge.

[pvelagal]

"A meritocracy, as things should be, rather than being based on race/gender/filling some sort of diversity quota".. wonder when AI beats humans at chess and go, where does meritocracy stand ? Are Japanese/european cars better than US' ? Is protectionism, which rust belt states voted for, bad ? Looks like at the end of the day, people matter and there should be a place for educated and un/undereducated.

[Nadya]

>Looks like at the end of the day, people matter and there should be a place for educated and un/undereducated.

So what makes a white or asian person the "better choice" than the black or latino person? Why should their race be a deciding factor in whether or not they are hired for a position? Education opens opportunities - especially in knowledge-based fields.

I'll take a strong, uneducated worker for a manual labor job over an intelligent toothpick because the stronger worker will be better for the job.

At the end of the day, why should [x] be chosen over [y] if [x] is better suited for the job? Is [x] not a person? Does [x] not matter? The only reason to select [y] is to pay a lower wage, they are easier to take advantage of, racism, or sexism.