That's why they have 3 month temporary employment rules.



Absolute equality is the linchpin of every liberal argument. They cannot admit that men are better suited to certain jobs than women (in general) because that would make the world a scary, uncertain place outside the realm of their comforting beliefs. So they have to come up with reasons why outcomes are unequal, and they inevitably fall upon some type of discrimination. Which begs the question, if men and women are totally equal, how was it that men oppressed women for thousands of years?



Because men are more interested in tech than women? Additionally, asian and indian people are far more likely to enter science and tech than their western counterparts, and this is true regardless of culture. Interestingly, scandinavian countries with the highest level of gender equality in the world have the biggest differences in career path choice, which is the exact opposite of what you would expect to see if their premise is correct.


Why would I want to work for a company who discriminates against me? In fact I would rather it was direct so I didn't have to go into it with false expectations.

So you agree with me that people who are members of a negatively stereotyped group are at a disadvantage against equivalently qualified members of a positively stereotyped group?

You don't understand liberalism very well if you think this.
This doesn't answer address my point. I wasn't asking you to explain the imbalance. I was pointing out that market forces in hiring are not enough to overcome imbalances if they are based on unequally distributed prior training. Maybe, as you say, that unequal distribution of prior training is the result of natural differences between the sexes or ethnic groups. Maybe they are not. But regardless of the answer, market forces at the firm-level will not correct for this kind of imbalance.

Just because the person hiring is prejudiced doesn't mean the job isn't still worthwhile. For instance, someone like wil would just acknowledge that prejudice is part of the world and try to make the best of it. Seems like a sensible attitude to me.

No, I'm saying 3 month temporary rules are in place to protect employers and employees from judging either too positively or too negatively the books cover. You can come in with tattoos and a bone in your nose and be an awesome employee or you can come in well dressed, well groomed and charming and be a ****ty one.



It depends on your definition. If you mean classical liberalism then I agree. If you mean progressivism or post-modernism then I am correct.

Fair enough I suppose, I probably agree.

You need to explain to me why it even needs to be corrected.

Watching DoOrDoNot argue makes me wonder how much more effective I'd have been if I wasn't such a dick.

How do you square your attitude here with the fact that you used academic research to try to establish the numbers of non-citizens who vote in the Trump thread?

Also, since anyone can find myriad studies verifying their position, could you cite some of the academic studies which support your position regarding the wage gap?

In all fairness he's just using the opposite side of attack. In debates it takes a long time to clean up an argument. If someone makes a claim and shows up with studies that support their arguments, it takes work to debunk all that. The wage gap is a good example.

I'm not sure I understand, are you saying you think it's a problem that people show up with studies to support their arguments? Like, it's an unfair tactic or something? I agree that it takes some effort to actually try to argue with research, but I can't fathom how that's a bad thing such that a person is justified in rejecting all academic research out of hand. Or, as appears to be more the case, rejecting any academic research that doesn't support their existing conclusions.

No. I'm saying it's more difficult to clean that up.

For example, let's say a person shows up with data which is accurate. They wave it around and say "women are being paid 77 cents on the dollar, and I have proof!" We are all well aware that data is accurate. The issue is we have to explain WHY that doesn't mean we need government intervention. That explanation of the why it doesn't paint the correct picture is harder than the person making the 77% claim, because technically it's correct.

Global warming is a good example. Yes, the world is getting warmer. Why? Not sure. What effect? Not sure. Very hard argument on the other side.

Sure, it's hard to make good arguments. Why do you think my posts are always so long? :P

I'm not sure what this has to do with my post though.

I'm not sure what to say. You clearly recognize that negative stereotypes can harm an equally qualified job applicant, since you support a temporary looser labor policy to alleviate this harm. Where do you disagree with me?

Well, postmodernism can be either conservative or liberal, so I certainly don't mean that. I have a lot of persnickety views about the connection between liberalism and progressivism, but let's just assume I mean mainstream Democratic thought, eg people like Obama & the Clintons.

Good.

I'm not assuming that it does. But if we want equality of opportunity, we should be looking at unbalanced outcomes as a clue to a lack of equality of opportunity. In some cases this is clearly due to an inherent difference in ability. For instance, we'd expect most NBA players to be tall and most loggers to be men. In others, it is murkier. It could be due to difference in ability, or it could be some people not having the same chances as others to learn the skills needed to be, for instance, a fireman.

I was just making an observation about the use of data. Just because he claimed anything can be supported with different interpretations of data doesn't mean he shouldn't use it.

Can you explain this a little more? What examples can you come up with where there is equality of opportunity and balanced outcomes? Where in the world would be a good example of that?

For example, India has more gender equality in tech than, say, the US and the scandanavian countries. Therefore, India must be less sexist.

I don't think anyone would agree that is correct.

post modernism is not conservative, the most basic defintion of pm is that its the rejection of the traditions and trappings of western modernity, absolute anathema to a person of conservative temperament.

DoOrDoNot revived this debate with a name drop of mother****ing Thomas "Every conservative's black friend" Sowell and a goddamned Utubz and the Rhodes scholar wilch over here is acting like he's seeing double rainbows.

1. derpospheric talking point from the alt-media
2. ???
3. PROFIT!

There'd better be some gold at the end of my grunch.

I'm not really arguing for balanced outcomes. My argument is this. Sometimes social views about people's capabilities are based on unfounded prejudice rather than facts about those people. This prejudice can limit these people in ways that won't necessarily be corrected by market forces. Thus, if we see an unbalanced outcome, but with no immediately apparent difference in people's capabilities, one of the explanations we should look at is whether this imbalance is the result of unfounded prejudice. If it is, then we should try to correct that, whether through government or non-governmental means.

Well, I don't think this stuff is simple. For instance, the bolded is consistent with a number of theses:

a) Tech is more entrepeneurial, less-network driven and easier to break into on the basis of merit than other industries, thus more women in India are in tech because they don't have the same opportunities in eg law, finance, business, education, etc that they'd have in the US or Scandinavia.
b) New industries are less effective in putting up barriers to entry, and tech is older in the US and Scandinavia.
c) Differences in the education and regulatory systems.
d) India is less sexist than the US and Scandinavia about women studying/working in STEM.
e) Many people who work in tech in the US are immigrants, often from more patriarchal societies.

I'm having a lot of trouble with the response because I don't see what can actually be done other than passing laws that prevent discrimination. It's up to the people to determine their outcomes, not any outside forces.

For example, Indian Americans absolutely dominate the national spelling bee. We know why they dominate it. The results are vastly skewed in their direction. Due to the results, should we step in and ensure there is a more diverse outcome? If they were whites, would you feel differently?

The results absolutely do not indicate discrimination, and I would imagine if we focused on Indian Americans and their inherent advantages due to the nature of their parents education and their financial standing and their blatantly unfair networks of spelling study groups we could make an argument this is blatant racism.

Except they aren't white, so we can't.

And this is the fundamental issue I have with many of the lefts arguments. They only apply to one group.

The OP of this thread suggests a policy (require public corporations to disclose their wage gaps) which doesn't actually modify enforcement of anti-discrimination laws, but may help alter outcomes by helping companies to become aware of and modify their own internal processes where they have unnecessarily unequal outcomes.

This does nothing to actually address discrimination. It is a method of forcing companies to unfairly give one group and advantage over another, women over men.

I don't see how you arrive at the conclusion that this forces companies to give women an unfair advantage. It literally forces companies to do nothing except publish some statistical data about their wages. I recall having to go to some great length to make this point earlier in the thread.

We are all intelligent people here. We can see what affect this will have on companies. Out of fear of claims of discrimination companies will be forced to give lagging females an automatic raise, which i don't even really have an issue with, except it's hurting the men because now their extra efforts go unrewarded or others receive undeserved benefit.

If you female and work at X company that publishes their wages, you lay back and cruise because if any men get raises you'll get them too. Why work hard?

I don't see how you can't see this.

The entire point of doing it is obviously to try to get companies to look at their own processes and make changes where changes are warranted. You seem to have previously agreed that at least in some cases wages were determined prejudicially. The goal is not effectively an affirmative action program. The goal is to create visibility of problems that we have good reasons to believe exist.

This is not the same as forcing companies to act in a discriminatory way towards men. Your extrapolation is unwarranted. Basically you're begging the question by assuming that any changes that would actually get made would be discriminatory against men. I see no reason to assume that. Presumably, since the UK passed this law, we will have a pretty good test case to see whether or not this happens.

Again I'm curious how someone can even claim it in necessary to eliminate 'wage gaps.' I'm assuming that gaps that have men above women must be amended asap but gaps that have women above men should be left because it brings up the average and is a sign of 'progress?'


You are operating from the premise that gaps in wages are present because of discrimination against women. How on earth could you even falsify such a claim? No one seems to be making the premise that men are discriminated against in the workplace, so the only possible outcome of your experiment would be that women are treated more preferentially than men, which is just exactly what you're fighting against but the other way around!

This is false. It is not a premise, it is a conclusion based on decades of relevant academic research. I've already provided you to a link with a very good overview of that research. Just because you dismissed the evidence out of hand doesn't entitle you to claim that discrimination is a premise.

Also, to be clear, I have never stated that the entirety of the wage gap is caused by discrimination (intentional or otherwise). Nor have I claimed that absolute numeric equality in wages (however measured) is the only tolerable state of affairs. I've never argued that we must entirely eliminate all wage gaps. Again, I'll refer you back to previous posts, some in this thread and some linked from earlier posts in this thread.