In nineteenth-century English and American common law, discrimination was characterized as improper distinctions in economic transactions; in addition to the above issue in the Railways Clauses Consolidation Act 1845, a hotelier capriciously refusing to give rooms to a particular patron would constitute economic discrimination.
In the United States the Robinson-Patman Act (1936), which prevents sellers of commodities in interstate commerce from discriminating in price between purchasers of goods of like grade and quality, was designed to prevent vertically integrated trusts from driving smaller competitors out of the market through economies of scale.
One study suggests that the increase in equal opportunity lawsuits has reduced this kind of discrimination in America by a large amount.
For example, some stores in the US Northwest do not stock ethnic foods, despite requests for such, since they feel the cost is too high for too low a return.
Additionally, the illegal immigration debate in the US has resulted in some businesses refusing to hire such workers based on the likelihood that they would be fined and litigated against.
In some cases, minorities are discriminated against simply because it is inefficient to make a concerted effort at a fair allocation.
The Equal Opportunity Employment Act in the US has almost reduced this sort of rationale for discrimination to nothing, according to recent studies.
Discrimination of minorities is a cycle the continues to repeat itself around the world due to historic views and the remnants of generations passed.
Their work has shown that the earnings of male and female MBA graduates from top US business schools are nearly identical at the outset of their careers.
[15] However, these findings appear to be changing as more men are seeking out careers that allow for flexibility in child care and some female dominant fields, like obstetrics, are developing new ways to increase work-life balance.
A study of employment patterns in the US indicated[5] that the number of hiring discrimination cases has increased fivefold in the past 20 years.
Even so, studies[5] have shown that it is easier for a white male to get a job than it is for an equally qualified man of color or woman of any race.
Private hiring, such as apprenticeships of electricians, plumbers, carpenters, and other trades is almost entirely broken down along racial lines, with almost no women in these fields and most minorities training those of their own race.
Studies indicate that less than 10% of all discrimination based on price is actually reported to any authority or regulatory body, and much of this is through class-action lawsuits.
In the cases of per diem charges, this is easily concealed as few consumers can exchange estimates and work rates, and even if they do the business in question can claim that the services provided had different baseline costs, conditions, etc.
Discrimination based on price in areas where special sales and deals simply are not offered can be justified by limiting them to those with strong credit ratings or those with past business with the company in question.
These charges of reverse racism or prejudicial analysis are a longstanding source of controversy in the study of economic discrimination.
[23] An increasing number of economists and international commerce theorists have suggested that economic discrimination goes far beyond the bounds of individuals or businesses.
The largest scale forms of economic discrimination, and the widest ranging, affect entire nations or global regions.