Your logical flaw is to assume that the amount of money for working and not working is the same. If those 600something bucks is enough for you, don't go to work. Personally, I couldn't even live a week off that.
And bluntly, if you can't earn more than 600 bucks by working, the problem is that salaries are too low and someone not paying more does not deserve getting employees.
I keep hearing this myth, but oddly, countries that have a strong social system and hence a distribution of money to the bottom don't suffer from higher inflation than countries that distribute money up towards those that already have more than they can spend.
The reason for this is simple: The amount of goods and services that can be offered is not fixed. If you have 100 instead of 10 people wanting and being able to pay for a haircut, prices for haircuts don't go up. Instead, more barber shops open and more people have jobs.
In the end, you will have unemployed people. When there is one job and two people, whether one wants the job and one wants to not do it or whether both want it but only one gets it has the same net result.
It's heaps cheaper (for everyone involved, government, employers and even the unemployed, or the employee, respectively) if you remove those that don't even want the job from the equation.
Well, considering that we simply don't have enough work for everyone, having a group of people who isn't going to compete for jobs is not really something I'd mind too much...
"But they'll surely manipulate it if someone with disabilities goes to vote, who tells me they print it correctly for the blind?"
Don't underestimate the creativity of people when it comes to wanting to believe in foul play. We already have aids for seeing impaired people in place that can also be audited by everyone.
Then stop blocking it and instead arrest the assholes doing it.
Blocking content never solved a problem. The people dealing in it just found a new way to do it. Usually less public and in ways that made it harder to catch them.
Ok, that we can agree on. Have computers count the paper slips. Fine. But every single vote has to be able to be counted manually. And I mean that literally to mean "by hand".
I refuse to consider "positive prejudice" positive. If anything, it's demeaning. I would NOT want to be hired for my skin, age, gender, sexual orientation or anything but my qualification. Being the "quota ni..." is about the WORST kind of workplace situation you could get into, with everyone thinking that you only got the job because of your sex/race/age..., that you drag the whole team down because you only got hired because of your sex/race/age/... and not because you actually can DO it.
How would you feel if you spent long and hard years learning your job and actually being GOOD at it, only to constantly feel like you don't really deserve the job you have and that everyone thinks you only got it because of your sex/race/age... and not your qualification?
Because that's what you do to people if you try this "positive discrimination" bullshit. You antagonize people. And you take away these people's ability to claim their fame, because even in spite of anything they accomplish, there is still that "yeah, but they only got there for their sex/race/..."
Yes, you're right. Writing something without a huge "HEY, KIDDING, IT'S FUN! LAUGH!" joke hanging over it is no longer possible because Poe's Law ain't just for religious nutjobs anymore.
I refuse to explain what the joke was, it's not funny anymore if you have to explain it.
Here's my solution: I get the applications from HR "headless". I only get qualification, former employment, credentials and certificates. The latter ones with the names and personal identification material removed. I have no idea who I actually invite for the interviews. This is partly because I really don't give a shit, partly to avoid opening us to any kind of suit about bias.
I also don't get to know who the people were I didn't pick for the interviews, so I actually don't know for sure whether people belonging to the non-white, non-male groups apply. It's a wee bit different over here in Europe, we have fewer people with ancestors in Africa. Still, I do think the concept itself is a good one. You can't completely eliminate bias because at the end of the day of course there is a job interview where you finally get to see the applicant in person and anonymity goes out the windows (and let's be honest here, I do want to at least speak to the person in person that I'm supposed to work together with before hiring them), but I think it's a good start. This way you can be certain that your initial phase picks are not influenced by any minority group bias, neither negatively by trying to avoid them, nor positively by wanting to take the minority person because they're a minority person and you want to showcase how much you are NOT prejudiced
A comedian (of all the people...) put it correctly in my opinion. Americans deal in terms of contracts with each other. With Europeans it's more in terms of relationships. Americans want to know what they can expect from their partner, they want it defined, they want the borders set and they want to know what's yours and what's mine. You can expect this from me, I will expect that from you, we both know that, we both accept that and that's all there is.
If you try that in Europe, you'll notice that quite a bit of hostility is going to meet you. Yes, even in a business environment. We don't like hard definitions. Everything here is kinda, sorta, maybe and possibly. And a lot remains undefined because both sides enjoy a bit of leeway when it comes to how you treat each other. It's actually pretty amazing that it still works out. We don't have a law concerning freedom of speech. Yet still we somehow have it. And everyone knows just how far they may go. Surprisingly, also everyone not only knows that unwritten law, people also comply with it and they can get VERY upset if you dare to ignore it.
That's really hard to describe. You'd have to experience that.
Then why do you keep going there? I would never set a foot into a restaurant anymore where I do not feel welcome, and not being thanked (provided I didn't act like a huge asshole and made their life miserable) is usually making me feel not welcome.
Slashdot Mirror
You'd prefer them to spend their last bucks on a gun and blow your head off for the 20 bucks in your wallet?
You say that like it isn't the obvious thing to do.
Far-right in Europe is generally still left of the GOP. My guess is 90% of our parties would be chased off as "commies" with pitchforks in the US.
Yeah, yeah, there is absolutely NO difference. But hey, you lump Nazis together with Commies, so even trying to educate you is probably a lost cause.
Your logical flaw is to assume that the amount of money for working and not working is the same. If those 600something bucks is enough for you, don't go to work. Personally, I couldn't even live a week off that.
And bluntly, if you can't earn more than 600 bucks by working, the problem is that salaries are too low and someone not paying more does not deserve getting employees.
I keep hearing this myth, but oddly, countries that have a strong social system and hence a distribution of money to the bottom don't suffer from higher inflation than countries that distribute money up towards those that already have more than they can spend.
The reason for this is simple: The amount of goods and services that can be offered is not fixed. If you have 100 instead of 10 people wanting and being able to pay for a haircut, prices for haircuts don't go up. Instead, more barber shops open and more people have jobs.
Sweden, Norway, Austria, Netherlands, Germany, ...
There's plenty of countries where the tax rates are high that offer a WAY higher quality of life than most of the US for most of its people.
In the end, you will have unemployed people. When there is one job and two people, whether one wants the job and one wants to not do it or whether both want it but only one gets it has the same net result.
It's heaps cheaper (for everyone involved, government, employers and even the unemployed, or the employee, respectively) if you remove those that don't even want the job from the equation.
Well, considering that we simply don't have enough work for everyone, having a group of people who isn't going to compete for jobs is not really something I'd mind too much...
"But they'll surely manipulate it if someone with disabilities goes to vote, who tells me they print it correctly for the blind?"
Don't underestimate the creativity of people when it comes to wanting to believe in foul play. We already have aids for seeing impaired people in place that can also be audited by everyone.
Any news on fixing Meltdown and Spectre?
Then stop blocking it and instead arrest the assholes doing it.
Blocking content never solved a problem. The people dealing in it just found a new way to do it. Usually less public and in ways that made it harder to catch them.
I think even here nobody would be desperate enough to take that offer.
And now explain this to the Redneck claiming that them computer geeks stole his beloved candidate's election.
Ok, that we can agree on. Have computers count the paper slips. Fine. But every single vote has to be able to be counted manually. And I mean that literally to mean "by hand".
I refuse to consider "positive prejudice" positive. If anything, it's demeaning. I would NOT want to be hired for my skin, age, gender, sexual orientation or anything but my qualification. Being the "quota ni..." is about the WORST kind of workplace situation you could get into, with everyone thinking that you only got the job because of your sex/race/age..., that you drag the whole team down because you only got hired because of your sex/race/age/... and not because you actually can DO it.
How would you feel if you spent long and hard years learning your job and actually being GOOD at it, only to constantly feel like you don't really deserve the job you have and that everyone thinks you only got it because of your sex/race/age... and not your qualification?
Because that's what you do to people if you try this "positive discrimination" bullshit. You antagonize people. And you take away these people's ability to claim their fame, because even in spite of anything they accomplish, there is still that "yeah, but they only got there for their sex/race/..."
So ... the answer is "Because Google is hoovering them all up"?
Yes, you're right. Writing something without a huge "HEY, KIDDING, IT'S FUN! LAUGH!" joke hanging over it is no longer possible because Poe's Law ain't just for religious nutjobs anymore.
I refuse to explain what the joke was, it's not funny anymore if you have to explain it.
Here's my solution: I get the applications from HR "headless". I only get qualification, former employment, credentials and certificates. The latter ones with the names and personal identification material removed. I have no idea who I actually invite for the interviews. This is partly because I really don't give a shit, partly to avoid opening us to any kind of suit about bias.
I also don't get to know who the people were I didn't pick for the interviews, so I actually don't know for sure whether people belonging to the non-white, non-male groups apply. It's a wee bit different over here in Europe, we have fewer people with ancestors in Africa. Still, I do think the concept itself is a good one. You can't completely eliminate bias because at the end of the day of course there is a job interview where you finally get to see the applicant in person and anonymity goes out the windows (and let's be honest here, I do want to at least speak to the person in person that I'm supposed to work together with before hiring them), but I think it's a good start. This way you can be certain that your initial phase picks are not influenced by any minority group bias, neither negatively by trying to avoid them, nor positively by wanting to take the minority person because they're a minority person and you want to showcase how much you are NOT prejudiced
It's different in Europe.
A comedian (of all the people...) put it correctly in my opinion. Americans deal in terms of contracts with each other. With Europeans it's more in terms of relationships. Americans want to know what they can expect from their partner, they want it defined, they want the borders set and they want to know what's yours and what's mine. You can expect this from me, I will expect that from you, we both know that, we both accept that and that's all there is.
If you try that in Europe, you'll notice that quite a bit of hostility is going to meet you. Yes, even in a business environment. We don't like hard definitions. Everything here is kinda, sorta, maybe and possibly. And a lot remains undefined because both sides enjoy a bit of leeway when it comes to how you treat each other. It's actually pretty amazing that it still works out. We don't have a law concerning freedom of speech. Yet still we somehow have it. And everyone knows just how far they may go. Surprisingly, also everyone not only knows that unwritten law, people also comply with it and they can get VERY upset if you dare to ignore it.
That's really hard to describe. You'd have to experience that.
Then why do you keep going there? I would never set a foot into a restaurant anymore where I do not feel welcome, and not being thanked (provided I didn't act like a huge asshole and made their life miserable) is usually making me feel not welcome.
You're welcome.
Guess I'm Canadian now, eh?
You're saying I could have had my ex in a little black box? It would've made breaking up so much easier...
You have a phone that can suggest synonyms? Neat.