Correct. The reality is that women are more expensive for companies given they still end up doing more stuff at home, spend more time on kids and such, so where with a man one person may suffice for a job, in case of women maybe 2 need to be hired to cover for each other when either takes off in the middle of everything.
However they are also more expensive in costs that are not immediate but are hanging out there: government turned women into a protected class and as such they are more dangerous (unexpectedly expensive) to hire than men. They can be the cause of more lawsuits regardless of what the company does or does not do.
Now, the more expensive something is, the less of that you consume. Anybody can understand this concept when they need to buy anything, a car, a house, a boat whatever, even food. The more expensive something is, the less of that you consume.
The costs do not have to be upfront. Buying a vacation house is probably not out of realm of possibilities for many people but it has to be maintained and there are taxes and other expenses (insurance, utilities, etc.) and these costs prevent some people from buying a vacation house.
Women are more expensive because they are made more expensive artificially by the government. If it was simply the cost of having to deal with a woman that takes care of children and if this was done completely privately, without government intervention this wouldn't be bad, workplace flexibility can be discounted from the wages. However it is not simply 2 parties negotiating, there is always a 3rd party in all negotiations - the government. The government is there and it puts various burdens on the employer because the employee has a vagina and supposedly needs some kind of protection beyond what the men get and for political reasons the government wants to look as if it provides this 'protection'. In reality this protection often 'protects' the woman from having a job in the first place. Under those conditions it shouldn't be a surprise at all that women take some discount on the wage that would be paid to a man. *There is some* difference (a few percentage points) in the amount of money an average woman and an average man can make for the same job and this difference probably acts as insurance against government action.
That is just fine with me, if somebody is willing to subsidise my consumption privately, all on their own, without being forced to do it they are more than welcome! If this kills competition then so be it. If these are actually subsidies, eventually they will stop, no subsidy lasts forever, private or otherwise. At that point competition will return. Such as life, it is tough and curious.
No, dumb shit, that means I am for individual freedom not to be oppressed by any government.
Obviously you have your head too far up your own ass to understand the argument of being absolutely against any government oppression while not actually discriminating. People *must have the right* to discriminate, whether they do - that's their business.
I would rather have a real keyboard added to my Android... RIM is asleep at the wheel, they could be building real keyboards (maybe with extra battery pack in them!) and licensing/selling them as add-ons to existing smart-phones.
Ha, find me anywhere I said I 'practice discrimination'. I don't have to I avoid hiring in the West in the first place.
Also I am clearly for the individual right to discriminate based on anything at all, the government coming up with laws on this subject is where discrimination comes from. Without those laws discrimination is minimal, with those laws companies have no choice but to discriminate.
I am for the individual right to discriminate. I avoid hiring in the West, that's my way to deal with the insanity of the collectivist government.
Of-course it is correct. Make it more expensive and difficult to fire classes of people and you have just made them less employable as a class. Where there were occasional cases of actual discrimination now you have introduced a system that punishes for hiring on basis of a person belonging to a protected class.
No sane employer would want to hire somebody who can sue them for termination on whatever grounds. Anybody should be able to fire anybody without any reason whatsoever and not be sued. Just like anybody can stop renting a place and go rent somewhere else. When you stop renting you are not going to be sued for 'discrimination' against a landlord because the landlord is old or black or a woman or a hindu or anything like that.
An employer faces constant discrimination lawsuits, is scrutinised on how he hires and fires people, the logical conclusion is that to win in this game don't play it, go and hire people somewhere else where the laws are not insane.
Every law that government passes creates a protected class of people and they are a pain to deal with for obvious reasons, what do you think happens to those protected classes, they get more jobs? Eventually the employers go somewhere else, where they will not be harassed by the government.
Well this is/., so if something is on it then it must be true;)
As to businesses in the West - that's my point precisely. Businesses shouldn't hire in the West and they are hiring less and moving elsewhere, it's specifically because they are harassed by the government often represented by lawyers.
shocked when a megacorp like BAE decides that they want their employees to be ready to be on premises 24/7 or they don't get a job?
- no, dummy, I never have to wonder why a company *wants* something. A company wants whatever a company wants. I wonder about the type of compensation that somebody needs to accept various conditions.
Davis said, the woman didnâ(TM)t entertain temporary alternative arrangements, such as working from home if needed. She simply insisted he needed to be available at the office 24/7.
- 24/7 ? Interesting arrangement. What do you need as compensation to accept an offer like that? I get it when a business owner has to work like that, but an employee? I am curious who takes this and for how much?
While it is illegal in the West, in the East the resumes come with age, marital status, very often with a picture right in the resume. See, it's easier to deal with people who are not using government for oppression of the employer, guess where the jobs are going. Now, I am not saying you should do any of that, pictures, age, marital status, your shoe size, what I am saying is that employers can shop today.
I remember. However age is a physical reality. The part of it that is 'social construct' is the subjective nonsense part, the part that is physical reality is the actual physical reality.
By the way, AFAIC if the system is of an opinion that it can force a person to hire another person against his or her wishes then what the system is doing is this: it is preventing hiring. You cannot force somebody to hire somebody they don't like.
You cannot force somebody to marry somebody they don't like by law. You cannot force somebody to sleep with somebody they don't like by law. You cannot force somebody to purchase a product or a service from somebody they don't like.... oh, wait, Obamacare and other forms of insurance and also wars that are being purchased with your name on the invoice.
So I guess you can in the Western world to do some of that. That's why the Western world is losing jobs, that's why it's losing its economy.
Ha ha ha, user name does not make me Russian. I was Soviet, that's correct, Russian? No. A user name doesn't make anybody anything, by the way. I have many other user name in many other places, think... think.
I don't like staying in one place for too long, will be moving again soon, having the workforce split across the world helps. Also I suppose the median age is slightly different from place to place but you are right, 26 has come and gone and 36 too, has come and gone. That's how it is.
Slashdot Mirror
Correct. The reality is that women are more expensive for companies given they still end up doing more stuff at home, spend more time on kids and such, so where with a man one person may suffice for a job, in case of women maybe 2 need to be hired to cover for each other when either takes off in the middle of everything.
However they are also more expensive in costs that are not immediate but are hanging out there: government turned women into a protected class and as such they are more dangerous (unexpectedly expensive) to hire than men. They can be the cause of more lawsuits regardless of what the company does or does not do.
Now, the more expensive something is, the less of that you consume. Anybody can understand this concept when they need to buy anything, a car, a house, a boat whatever, even food. The more expensive something is, the less of that you consume.
The costs do not have to be upfront. Buying a vacation house is probably not out of realm of possibilities for many people but it has to be maintained and there are taxes and other expenses (insurance, utilities, etc.) and these costs prevent some people from buying a vacation house.
Women are more expensive because they are made more expensive artificially by the government. If it was simply the cost of having to deal with a woman that takes care of children and if this was done completely privately, without government intervention this wouldn't be bad, workplace flexibility can be discounted from the wages. However it is not simply 2 parties negotiating, there is always a 3rd party in all negotiations - the government. The government is there and it puts various burdens on the employer because the employee has a vagina and supposedly needs some kind of protection beyond what the men get and for political reasons the government wants to look as if it provides this 'protection'. In reality this protection often 'protects' the woman from having a job in the first place. Under those conditions it shouldn't be a surprise at all that women take some discount on the wage that would be paid to a man. *There is some* difference (a few percentage points) in the amount of money an average woman and an average man can make for the same job and this difference probably acts as insurance against government action.
The number of molecules in the ocean is greater than the total number of hairs on all people's asses.... just about as a useful comparison.
If being absolutely cool is outlawed then only the Outlaws will be absolutely cool.
That is just fine with me, if somebody is willing to subsidise my consumption privately, all on their own, without being forced to do it they are more than welcome! If this kills competition then so be it. If these are actually subsidies, eventually they will stop, no subsidy lasts forever, private or otherwise. At that point competition will return. Such as life, it is tough and curious.
No, dumb shit, that means I am for individual freedom not to be oppressed by any government.
Obviously you have your head too far up your own ass to understand the argument of being absolutely against any government oppression while not actually discriminating. People *must have the right* to discriminate, whether they do - that's their business.
I would rather have a real keyboard added to my Android... RIM is asleep at the wheel, they could be building real keyboards (maybe with extra battery pack in them!) and licensing/selling them as add-ons to existing smart-phones.
I think Uber is good rather than evil, they are providing me with better options to taxi and I personally don't particularly care how they do it.
Only if done for comedic purposes.
Ha, find me anywhere I said I 'practice discrimination'. I don't have to I avoid hiring in the West in the first place.
Also I am clearly for the individual right to discriminate based on anything at all, the government coming up with laws on this subject is where discrimination comes from. Without those laws discrimination is minimal, with those laws companies have no choice but to discriminate.
I am for the individual right to discriminate.
I avoid hiring in the West, that's my way to deal with the insanity of the collectivist government.
Of-course it is correct. Make it more expensive and difficult to fire classes of people and you have just made them less employable as a class. Where there were occasional cases of actual discrimination now you have introduced a system that punishes for hiring on basis of a person belonging to a protected class.
No sane employer would want to hire somebody who can sue them for termination on whatever grounds. Anybody should be able to fire anybody without any reason whatsoever and not be sued. Just like anybody can stop renting a place and go rent somewhere else. When you stop renting you are not going to be sued for 'discrimination' against a landlord because the landlord is old or black or a woman or a hindu or anything like that.
An employer faces constant discrimination lawsuits, is scrutinised on how he hires and fires people, the logical conclusion is that to win in this game don't play it, go and hire people somewhere else where the laws are not insane.
Dummy, I was talking about getting married to somebody, not marrying somebody else. Good job parsing simple sentences.
Every law that government passes creates a protected class of people and they are a pain to deal with for obvious reasons, what do you think happens to those protected classes, they get more jobs? Eventually the employers go somewhere else, where they will not be harassed by the government.
Well this is /., so if something is on it then it must be true ;)
As to businesses in the West - that's my point precisely. Businesses shouldn't hire in the West and they are hiring less and moving elsewhere, it's specifically because they are harassed by the government often represented by lawyers.
shocked when a megacorp like BAE decides that they want their employees to be ready to be on premises 24/7 or they don't get a job?
- no, dummy, I never have to wonder why a company *wants* something. A company wants whatever a company wants. I wonder about the type of compensation that somebody needs to accept various conditions.
The entire point is to avoid hiring in the West.
I see, anybody born in the former USSR is a Russian, got it!
Davis said, the woman didnâ(TM)t entertain temporary alternative arrangements, such as working from home if needed. She simply insisted he needed to be available at the office 24/7.
- 24/7 ? Interesting arrangement. What do you need as compensation to accept an offer like that? I get it when a business owner has to work like that, but an employee? I am curious who takes this and for how much?
While it is illegal in the West, in the East the resumes come with age, marital status, very often with a picture right in the resume. See, it's easier to deal with people who are not using government for oppression of the employer, guess where the jobs are going. Now, I am not saying you should do any of that, pictures, age, marital status, your shoe size, what I am saying is that employers can shop today.
I remember. However age is a physical reality. The part of it that is 'social construct' is the subjective nonsense part, the part that is physical reality is the actual physical reality.
By the way, AFAIC if the system is of an opinion that it can force a person to hire another person against his or her wishes then what the system is doing is this: it is preventing hiring. You cannot force somebody to hire somebody they don't like.
You cannot force somebody to marry somebody they don't like by law.
You cannot force somebody to sleep with somebody they don't like by law.
You cannot force somebody to purchase a product or a service from somebody they don't like.... oh, wait, Obamacare and other forms of insurance and also wars that are being purchased with your name on the invoice.
So I guess you can in the Western world to do some of that. That's why the Western world is losing jobs, that's why it's losing its economy.
No, the government is full of douchebags that protect people from having jobs under the pretence of helping them.
Ha ha ha, user name does not make me Russian. I was Soviet, that's correct, Russian? No. A user name doesn't make anybody anything, by the way. I have many other user name in many other places, think... think.
The Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA) only protects workers older than 40.
- protects them from getting employment of-course.
I don't like staying in one place for too long, will be moving again soon, having the workforce split across the world helps. Also I suppose the median age is slightly different from place to place but you are right, 26 has come and gone and 36 too, has come and gone. That's how it is.
I suppose at some point that becomes true, doesn't it?