That's an interesting statement, I've never heard it before. And I can see how, viewed from a certain perspective, it can be seen as entirely true.

But I'm viewing it through a lens in which discrimination isn't just a one-way street. The wealthy and the educated (aka, the "privileged") are also discriminated against, both by those who are not privileged, and those who are more privileged.

There are several instances of everyday prejudice against the middle and upper class (most of it from the lower class), such as assuming poor work ethic (as a result of never having to work for anything), ignorance of hardship, and/or that the person has been privileged for their whole life.

As far as employment opportunities, it gets a little more nebulous. Of course, employers are more likely to hire you if you are educated, or come from a solid middle to upper class background. However, the stereotype still stands among other employees, who might hold a grudge against their coworker based on prejudice, jealousy, or frustration with the class system.

Consider also an employer who was, at one point, a member of the "underprivileged" but worked his way up with everything he had. Would he be more likely to hire the prep-school valedictorian or the hard-working single mom who just obtained her GED?

That said, discrimination also harms those who dish it out. Perhaps not as much as it harms the recipients of it, but still. For example, discrimination on the employment level can cost the employer money, if he hires based on his prejudices. It could also cost him his job.

On a more moral platform, one could also argue that it bruises the discriminator's metaphorical soul... but I'm not sappy enough to go there.

I agree with your disagreement :) I was on a different site, and someone asserted this. Not to me, but I still found it interesting, and wanted to know others' opinions.

Also, what about the privileged black man who doesn't get a job based on his race?

Or the privileged white man who doesn't get the job because the boss needs to fill his "minority quota"?

Reminds me of the "Stolen Generation" and the early european settlement in australia 1700's, white man over black man. Native American tribes getting wiped out by Europeans, the loss of a nation, a whole culture by conversion to Christianity. (I dont mean to offend anyone here)

Discrimination goes so far from ethnicity/culture, sex, age, you name it and i think in some ways we can all be discriminative at one point or another.

But I think people can be discriminative towards people that they have no knowledge or awareness of and they tend to stick to their minority groups, though it doesnt make that necessarily right cuz people can get hurt if people take discrimination too far using violence, abuse both physical or verbal.

On the broadest level, discrimination hurts everyone. Let's go to the most basic form of discrimination to illustrate this:
Take a species, say, humans. One ethnic group of humans (group A) discriminates against another group (group B) and so A does not reproduce with B. Genetic diversity for the species is thereby reduced as well as the size of the gene pool, with all the attendant deleterious effects to the robustness of the species. Examples of this are the Hapsburgs (and presumably various other noble blood lines throughout history), who bred only with other royals/nobles. Eventually they were all cousins, because the pool of acceptable mates was so small due to their discrimination. This resulted in quite a few undesirable genetic traits getting reinforced in the bloodline.

But this analogy extends to all sorts of other realms where diversity is a benefit crippled by discrimination: business, art, literature, sports...I am hard-pressed to think of an area of human endeavor that would not be so negatively affected.