www.rottentomatoes.com/m/corporation/
The Corporation, a documentary by filmmakers Mark Achbar and Jennifer Abbott and author Joel Bakan, delves into that legal standard, essentially asking: if corporations were people, what kind of people would they be? Applying psychiatric principles and FBI forensic techniques, and through a series of case studies, the film determines that this entity, the corporation, which has an increasing power over the day-to-day existence of nearly every living creature on earth, would be a psychopath.

Magnifico, great, I thoroughly agree. In fact, in "The art of speaking and writing", Olof Lagercrantz argues that that is the whole reason for the development of the corporation: to become a psychopathical moneymaking machine, devoid of morals and ethics. Hence the success of stockmarkets as a medium for financial transactions.

In every transaction, including the sale of labour to an employer, two parties must (in a free market) agree on price and conditions. Indeed as misfit points out, sometimes one party is in a better bargaining position that the other. I suppose this might be down to culture, legislation, and other stuff.

Psychopaths are people too, i suppose.

@yankee00

1) "Being six foot tall basketball player or a 300lb sumo wrestler are completely differrent demands than having white skin to teach English."

Not sure what your arguments are but I think you are saying that there is a valid excuse to discriminate against people under 6 feet tall because being tall has a desirable advantage in basketball while the color of the skin has no bearing on the quality of teaching. However, just because you are tall doesn't make you a good basketball player and just because you're 5'7 like Spud Webb doesn't mean you can't slam dunk a ball and make it in the NBA. Most Chinese think being White is a good indicator of your English ability, rightly or wrongly. In most Chinese's mind, foreign means English, how many times do people say I want a foreign teacher when they meant they want a English teacher. If you are White, 99% of the time you are a native European/American therefore you are a native speaker of foreign language(i.e. English). If you are Asian like ABCs and CBCs, it is quite possible that the school is fooling you and the teacher is actually only someone who studied abroad.

2) "To teach English, you need the qualification, skill and experience. Why do Black teachers who meet those demands have to be paid less than Whites because of the way they look?"

I don't think they are paying Black teachers less, once hired they pay everyone the same. Also, this Black/White issue is mostly an American hangup, I think they are screening against Asians instead of Blacks. It's harder convincing paying parents that the Chinese dude they are looking at actually speaks perfect English even if they hear them speak. But if it is a foreign face, such objects are almost never present.

Another point on this is, most training schools are not looking for "teachers", they are looking for billboards. The market demands foreign faces, having a foreign face attracts customers, bottom line.

3) "By agreeing with this absurd belief from Chinese parents, you are only encouraging and enforcing their ignorance and naivety. If you are a teacher, you are supposed to help educate people, not keep them in ignorance"

I'm not agreeing to this absurdity and I do make such arguments to those that bother to listen, however, it's irreverent to this issue. As foreigners what are we suppose to do? Should a White faced foreigner go through the interview process, get hired and then refuse to work citing the school discriminating policy? Should non-white faced foreigners stand in front of the school and ask every parent why they believe only white-faced foreigners are qualified to teach English and try to convince them that non-Whites are also qualified?

Also, are we really "teachers". How many English "teachers" in China see teaching as their profession? Or is it a transition, a job that pays the bill while sightseeing in China? I for one, never consider myself as a teacher and I've been doing this for almost 10 years. I'm a speaking coach, a proofreader, an idiom explain-er but never a teacher.

Anyway, as always, my views are said with all due respect. No flaming or trolling intended.

Cheers~

@misfit

Per wikipedia:

"Capitalism is defined as a social and economic system in which capital assets are mainly owned and controlled by private persons, labor is purchased for money wages, capital gains accrue to private owners, and the price mechanism is utilized to allocate capital goods between uses. The extent to which the price mechanism is used, the degree of competitiveness, and government intervention in markets distinguish exact forms of capitalism.

There are different variations of capitalism which have different relationships to markets and the state. In free-market and laissez-faire forms of capitalism, markets are utilized most extensively with minimal or no regulation over the pricing mechanism. In interventionist and mixed economies, markets continue to play a dominant role but are regulated to some extent by government in order to correct market failures, promote social welfare, conserve natural resources, and fund defense and public safety. In state capitalist systems, markets are relied upon the least, with the state relying heavily on state-owned enterprises or indirect economic planning to accumulate capital."

When most Republicans and talking heads on Fox speak of capitalism being good, they are invoking the free-market and laissez-faire variety hence all the talk of too much regulation and taxes. What you described is a mixed economy where through regulation the state controls the means of production of certain social services and is driven by a utilitarian need (via welfare) instead of being driven by profit (definition of socialism).

Capitalism reduced to its simplest terms is to seek maximum profit. It make choices that leads to higher profit, it has nothing to do with discrimination or qualification. If a Black man can bring in the same amount of profit as a White woman or Asian man or Black woman, then it matters not to a true capitalist who is hired. If under those conditions he/her only hires one race or gender over the other then it becomes discrimination and therefor becomes a social issue.

However, this is not the case with the ad in question. The motives are not driven by racial discrimination but rather by market incentives. A White face can more readily bring in more profit while any other face which requires more convincing, which equals more labor involved, which equals more cost, which ultimately leads to less profit. Which, was the point of my original argument about capitalism. We are only valued by the amount of profit we can bring in for the capitalist, if we can not bring in any value then the capitalist has no moral obligation to lookout for our welfare. We are tossed aside to fend for ourselves.

Many laws that we hold as virtuous or right runs counter to capitalism which is to seek maximum profit. There was a time when stewardesses were hired based on their looks, body figure, age, and marital status. Why was this? Because this is what the passengers wanted to see, it gives the airlines a competitive advantage; if everyone else is doing it then not doing it puts them at a disadvantage. The laws did away with this type of discrimination domestically but now American airlines are at a competitive disadvantage against airlines who do not face such regulations.

Bottom line, a capitalistic society in which the Republic party is advocating through less regulation and lass taxes will create situations similar to those manifested in the ad in question. For those advocating Republican policies, you can't at the same scream discrimination.

The above are only opinions and if I'm lucky, sprinkled with some truth.

Cheers~

The sad truth is that I have actually seen a China teaching job ad that offered lower pay for black people.

@tigertiger

I stand corrected. THAT, is something to get riled over.

@Tonyaod
I am not discriminating against short people. The sports that you mentioned all require specific ranges of height and weight for each category/position the player will play in. In basketball, teams will usually specifically ask for short (more mobile and agile) players like Spud Webb and Muggsy Bogues to fill point guard positions. I don't know much about American football, but I am guessing that a quarterback will at least require higher weight and height, good decision making and a powerful arm to throw the ball. Same goes for a teacher who will at least meet the demands that I previously mentioned. It would be absurd if teams if teams started asking requirements that are irrelevant to the job, like a specific skin colour, being bald or not etc..

"If you are White, 99% of the time you are a native European/American therefore you are a native speaker of foreign language(i.e. English)."

English isn't the native language of 99% of Whites who come from Europe or North America. But parents would still ask to have a White teacher under the belief that they would be native English speakers, which in turn would make the schools try to make their business run by hiring anyone White and make them pretend to be native English speakers.

Those who should be given more concern here aren't the schools. They are only here to offer a platform for the teachers and customers to meet and take their incentive. I believe that it's the teachers' duty to help educate the customers instead of soullessly taking advantage of the situation. I've met quite a few young native and non-native English teachers that are supposed to educate little kids, but instead make them learn curse words while telling them it means something else or make them unknowingly insult themselves. Those are people who hate their job are only here to take the money and party. I understand that young people need to have some fun and that it's an easy opportunity to get a job, especially since they are having a hard time finding jobs in their own country, but it's the education and future of innocent kids that we are talking about. I did meet plenty of other teachers who were very talented at their job though.
I know it's naive of me to think like this, but this is how I prefer to do things, especially when it comes to doing my (non-teaching) job.

"I don't think they are paying Black teachers less, once hired they pay everyone the same."

There is definitely racial discrimination against Blacks here. And it's right in their face. Even in bigger cities like Shanghai, Beijing and Guangzhou. Some are lucky to get hired on a ridiculously lowered pay, others are crudely rejected despite having qualifications, experience and even ability to entertain a class (which is apparently the big thing in China).
It doesn't just stop at hiring teachers. A few months ago, I had a Black friend who wanted to study Chinese and got refused by two schools (one of them being the Mandarin and English school run by the foreign guy and his Chinese wife on Longxiang Jie) while I was accepted. Funny thing is that we both come from the same place.

That school above made this type of advert because they need to make their business run, but at the source, the parents are asking them to make those requirements based on ignorance and racial discrimination.

Well aside from all the capitalism lecture and debate, back to the question, what's wrong with the ad.

The ability to teach English really has nothing to do with your skin color.

I think that's what's intrinsically wrong with the ad. But serving you a meal and drinks on a plane had nothing to do with being young, female, and attractive, but that's how it was too not so long ago.

Tonyaod the capitalism you described would be a failure and that's why capitalism had an evolution since the industrial revolution . The real capitalist not only follows but also drives the market. The costs of image, advertising and communication used to influence the market will result in an extra profit and in a more leading position among competitors.
The case of the ad is not even capitalism but simply poor business. A school who doesn't invest in professionalism will soon shutdown,even in km. If there's no professionalism teachers will get bored soon and leave the school. Parents will see different teachers rotating, they will doubt and probably find a better place for their kids. There are plenty of kindergarten opening and closing down in km because of that.
Successful schools who care about their development (and so their profit, as you know that the start-up is a non profit period) would never write an ad "white faces only" but rather "long-term only", basically planning to have a set of professional employees who can gain experience and train the newcomers. That's the only way for a successful and durable "capitalist" business all over the world. The rest is called peanuts,risk or money laundry.