That would only be true if your definition of wealth is cash value. In other words, that wealth also includes billions of dollars worth (not really) of crappy abstract art, and a 2 million dollar tintype of Billy the Kid. But that's hardly any of it. Do you know what Jeff Bezos, Bill Gates, Mark Zuckerberg, and Warren Buffett have in common? If you guessed "billions of dollars", then you're wrong! What they all have in common is some prime real estate that somebody else decides how much it's worth, and most importantly of all, they hold a bunch of shares that sell for a lot on the open market, and at the end of the day, those are just numbers written on a spinning magnetic patter. Same with the money in their bank accounts.
Contrary to popular belief by politicians and socialists, if they all suddenly gave everything they had away, then it's not going to solve world hunger, homelessness, or any other crap like that. Instead, it will do only one thing: Increase inflation. Also, contrary to popular belief by politicians and socialists, increasing the money supply will only serve to increase inflation. Think about it: if your money is not in circulation (assuming a good portion of it even exists at all, which for rich people, it mostly doesn't) then, as far as everybody else is concerned, it isn't part of the money supply. However, if they suddenly gave it all up, and it went into open circulation, that may as well be as if the Fed decided to suddenly print billions of dollars.
Now, if you consider wealth by it's actual definition (meaning material goods in their possession, as opposed to net worth, which is really what you're talking about) then no, the richest people do not own 70% of all of the world's wealth, or anything even remotely close to that number. By the way, this is simultaneously why a universal basic income won't do us any favors: The forces of supply and demand determine the price of rent. When people are given more money, then they'll simply outbid the homeless guy who was given the same amount.
That was the whole point. That, and he opened himself up to it, so I felt it necessary to quip (i.e., it was a well timed joke, mainly a slight against the person I replied to.)
I honestly couldn't care less about what you think of my political affiliations (or lack thereof.) The fact is, the Democratic party's superdelegate system quickly becomes one sided when the party elite make a decision. You know, good and well, that the party elite decided that they wanted a female president, no matter what her problems were. So guess where 100% of the superdelegate votes went? While I'm no fan of Bernie, I can plainly see what happened there.
And I think that if I was partisan towards Republicans, I'd very much have opposite views to many that I espouse often:
- I'm strongly pro net neutrality - I'm strongly pro cannabis legalization - I'm strongly against almost everything Trump has done (though some things were good, like making our corporate income tax rates more inline with the rest of the first world nations)
Somebody forgets their history lessons. Try looking up who passed the first Tariff Act, the Embargo Act, the American System, the Civil War Tariffs and the policies of McKinley, Teddy Roosevelt and Hoover.
I see you've never heard of Bernie Sanders. You know, the guy that didn't get any superdelegate votes. You know, for that primary system they use to override popular opinion within their own party so that the party elite get to make all of the decisions, and fuck the rest.
Protectionism is the number one economic issue I end up bashing Democrats about here on slashdot. It's probably no coincidence that labor unions adore protectionism, mainly because, as I often say, it's not about the workers (who end up getting fucked anyways,) rather it's about getting more money and power for the mafi...I mean...union management.
And before Trump, I used to always get downmodded when I would explain why nobody wins when you use tariffs. Now all of a sudden the bad guy likes tariffs, suddenly Democrats hate them (but they still love Bernie, who still loves tariffs.) And no, I'm not a republican, or right wing, or anything else.
You can so long as you wait 12 months after receiving either a blood transfusion or an organ. Others are accepted as well after a 12 month suspension, such as: renting the four dirtiest hookers you can find and having a fivesome, receiving buttsex, and receiving gonorrea. Clamydia, herpes, and genital warts are not crimes however, so you don't have to wait 12 months to donate, as you've already been punished.
Some crimes are beyond redemption, however, including exchanging bodily fluids with an Englishman or a Frenchman even one time since 1980. For this high crime of desecrating your body, you may never donate, and especially in the case of a Frenchman, may God have mercy on your soul.
Understand that he learned his grammar from watching Yoda during his early years, so sometimes you have those moments of "wtf is this guy saying" He said he was, and I quote:
medaling over US elections
He's saying that he was making medals to award to the winners of US elections when the elections were over, only in Yoda speak. This means that he gave Trump a medal, which was his proudest moment in life, hence he mentions Trump occasionally.
First of all, woosh! Secondly, your joke made no sense. Why would a waiter replace parmesan with dandruff? Where would they even get enough? Besides, I'm not an asshole to them, so why would they put that in my food?
Hopefully that response will help you figure out the precise meaning of my joke.
Actually the problem is getting Apple fanboys to shut the hell up. This problem has existed since long before iPhone transformed them into iFans. Even before the Newton. Being around Apple fans is like a 24/7 gay pride event.
Yes, you exist, I didn't say otherwise. No, I don't want you to show me your iphone, keep it in your pants.
This is capitalism's Achilles Heel. Businesses are run on short term thinking. Sure your trade secrets are going to get stolen and they are going to use your tech to kick you out of there market in two years, but don't you want to do business in China today? Selling in the Chinese market will increase your stock price next quarter.
You (and the moderators thus far) think you're clever enough to understand the situation with China and how it relates to western economies that you can come up with a statement like this as if it is insightful, but you don't. You think you have more wisdom than business leaders and investors on this, but you don't. Both, by and large, have already considered this, and many other possible outcomes you can't even fathom.
Investors are looking for long term growth, and only long term growth. If they're not, then they're not investors, they're gamblers. You've already shown that your mind can't wrap itself around the idea that investors don't care about just one quarterly report, or even two. (If they do, then they're either new to investing, or are just dumb.) Investors look at many indicators before investing, including the company's strategy for growth. Investors are a finicky bunch as well. If they hear doom and gloom, they are quick to sell. If a company does anything to get an income in the short term at the expense of long term growth, investors will notice and the stock price will fall. They don't care about a quick profit, unless the company is already in liquidation and they plan on receiving the proceeds.
But you know who loves having just one good quarter? Not investors, short sellers. Short sellers are gamblers, and their intention is that the stock price will fall. No business leader likes a short seller.
Nevertheless, in the long term (multigenerational term), it doesn't matter, they are going to figure it out for themselves one way or the other anyway.
You communists keep saying capitalism is all about the short term, and like most things communists say, it's so incredibly false that nobody is ever going to take you seriously, and you wonder why nobody wants to vote for you. (And then communists always wonder why they find themselves having to overthrow democracy to get their way.)
In 1947, communists declared "late stage capitalism" after the rise of the USSR followed by many smaller states converting to communism (nearly all of which were not democratic, were primarily based on USSR intervention, and just like the October revolution, the sadists found themselves in charge.)
Capitalism is alive and well in this long term, scaling to heights that Marx himself never could have imagined, and communism could never have achieved. His vision for a perfect humanity was one where we all had 100% employment in mines, factories, and farms. Well he was almost right: The communists achieved that dream. Meanwhile, the capitalists moved on.
Marx is obsolete.
Forget late stage. Communism reached end stage in the late 80's. It sung its deathrattle during the 90's while billions were liberated from all of the suffering, famine, and destitution it had caused them.
Oh, and learn the difference between "there" and "their".
It's much worse than you think. Such software would have to keep up with every state, municipality, and local government in the US. You're going to have to know which items are taxed at what rate, and whether sales tax applies to certain types of items when combined, and what rate they're taxed at. I bet if somebody took any statistics on these, they'd probably find there are multiple sales tax code changes daily in all of the US.
All of the major tax software companies are no doubt salivating over this. It will cost a lot, and if any rules are proposed to try to even standardize reporting alone, you bet your ass that their lobbyists will kill it, just like what happened with the IRS's proposal to do everybody's taxes for free (mainly because they already have all of the information they need.)
The biggest thing I don't understand in this is how people come from south of the border that can't even legally get a job, yet they manage to find enough income to be able to afford to live in a house with money to spare, and still they don't rely on shitty Uber. You know why? Because they actually...try...
That's easy: Don't drive for Uber. Really, if you don't like it, then just don't fucking do it. Personally, I wouldn't pay somebody $2 an hour to drive me around. If they really insisted on doing it to get anything from me, it would be somewhere south of a dollar. Really, that's what it's worth to me.
Oh but you think you "have to" drive for Uber because capitalism and because the corporations and because the government? Usually I offer fixes for that, which have worked for people I know, but too often on slashdot I get replies from people who break down every possible fix and essentially say it's impossible to get any other job, even during a general labor shortage (there's a name for this, it's a personality disorder in the DSMV, don't recall it right now.)
If that's you, then go to therapy. If that's impossible too, then go buy a tent, and go move to Los Angeles or San Francisco. The weather is nice there, working is entirely optional even if you have kids. People do this by the millions there, so don't feel bad about it. You won't be alone as there are many more like you who make all of the same excuses that you do, so you'll have much in common, and you'll get to complain about all of the same things they do. Best of all, if you don't like your neighbors, moving is really easy. Oh, and therapy is free there too.
It depends on what you set your email preferences to. I never did use facebook much, but I always kept getting emails about how so-and-so posted a photo I was tagged in, or liked what the fuck ever, or commented on a post from somebody I don't even know. It never stopped until I was sick of them flooding my inbox and changed the preferences to block all forms of emails.
People know that if they need to get ahold of me, then don't try to message my facebook account.
I'm still trying to figure out why we need yet another branch of the military. If all they do is space, then what how do they engage in combat? That's not military at all. In every branch of the armed forces, every single person has a combat role attached to their military specially. This includes ones whose job description you'd think would never see combat. For example, the ones who play musical instruments for a band (or whatever they do these days) act as prison guards for their combat role.
So what the fuck kind of combat role would a space soldier have? It would be silly to give them veterans benefits for the same reason. Even if you never saw combat in your career, you're still a veteran because you made yourself available. Besides, what do we refer to the personnel as?
Army is soldiers Navy is semen Marines are...well...Sailors with guns, or jarheads, or "couldn't be a seal"s Coast guard is...Sailor of the puddle pirate variety Air Force is airmen
So what is the space force? Space guys? Space cadets? Roger Ramjets? (Just made sure they have access to women so they don't turn out the way the Navy did) Starmen? (Though I'm pretty sure that is trademarked by DC comics. Or is it Walt Disney?)
And what happens when they get involuntarily separated? Instead of washouts, do they become spacedouts?
That's basically a colon cleaning. It's totally useless otherwise and does nothing for your health, but I can't say I've heard of it being used to remove foreign objects, but it might work, and you don't need any kind of a license to do it.
Especially the kind of foreign objects that were shoved up there too far that one time when you were drunk at that party, pulled your pants down, bent over, and shouted "Go ahead! See what you can fit in there!"
It's not so much about feminism, it's social justice, and I'm not using that term pejoratively here or anywhere in this post, and I'm being sincere about this. The complaint about Google is that they aren't meeting enough diversity quotas that social justice warriors say they should. For example, they don't have enough black engineers. This used to annoy me, and normally I'd say what's wrong with merit based hiring? But no more. Google is obviously trying to push social justice with the way they delete and demonetize YouTube videos that have otherwise benign content, including two transexuals that committed the crime of not being left leaning, and two black ladies that were guilty of the same crime. That, and the way Google instills a culture of fear against employees don't de-diversify and join the echo chamber. I think it's time Google ate its own shit.
Silicon Valley is progressive, and California is as well, right? So why doesn't progressive California together, with progressive San Francisco (and its surrounding progressive cities) force progressive Google to start hiring on more diverse talent? Would it not be the progressive thing to do? I'm being serious here. Would that not promote social justice? In fact, why not force them to replace their Chief Diversity Officer with a notable civil rights leader? Obviously their existing CDO isn't doing her job. Really, how can it be argued that she is? Google's diversity numbers are even worse now than they were last year.
Google is mostly white males, which means it is in need of a re-balancing. Not enough black people? Fire enough white guys to make room. Don't worry, they're progressive, they'll understand that this is for the better good, because they also support equality. Not enough latino guys? Fire more white guys. Not enough native americans? Pacific islanders? You know what to do. Asians are over-represented? Don't worry about it, they're minorities, just don't hire any more until their numbers go down to meet the ratio. When dismissing white guys, make sure that the cisexual ones are the first to go. Once the ratios are representative of the population, you can hire white hetereosexual males again, just make sure the ratios remain intact. Again, they're progressives, in progressive California. They'll understand. The progressives know that white males got there from white privilege, and all of this is necessary. Having removed enough white males, this should help balance out the male to female ratio. If not, begin dismissing the minorities of most privilege, i.e. homosexual white males. Don't worry though as it won't come to that, the white population makes up quite a big percentage of the overall population.
I'm being serious about that. I'm a white male and I honestly couldn't care less. Do this with facebook too. Facebook and Google, more than all, should be the first movers, and fine them hard if they don't do this. So be honest, whom among the social justice warriors (again, not being pejorative here) and progressives would not want this? It sets out to accomplish one of your biggest goals. If not, why not? .
Google's feelings of diversity are just like that of California universities:
Multiple skin colors, all 51 genders,* and all 187 sexual orientations.**
* Diversity of opinion is not permitted. ** Cisexual cismales with white skin must choose one of the other 50 genders and/or one of the 186 other sexualities. Your skin color will be decided by your diversity officer fairly using diversity standard skin tone swatches.
Slashdot Mirror
That would only be true if your definition of wealth is cash value. In other words, that wealth also includes billions of dollars worth (not really) of crappy abstract art, and a 2 million dollar tintype of Billy the Kid. But that's hardly any of it. Do you know what Jeff Bezos, Bill Gates, Mark Zuckerberg, and Warren Buffett have in common? If you guessed "billions of dollars", then you're wrong! What they all have in common is some prime real estate that somebody else decides how much it's worth, and most importantly of all, they hold a bunch of shares that sell for a lot on the open market, and at the end of the day, those are just numbers written on a spinning magnetic patter. Same with the money in their bank accounts.
Contrary to popular belief by politicians and socialists, if they all suddenly gave everything they had away, then it's not going to solve world hunger, homelessness, or any other crap like that. Instead, it will do only one thing: Increase inflation. Also, contrary to popular belief by politicians and socialists, increasing the money supply will only serve to increase inflation. Think about it: if your money is not in circulation (assuming a good portion of it even exists at all, which for rich people, it mostly doesn't) then, as far as everybody else is concerned, it isn't part of the money supply. However, if they suddenly gave it all up, and it went into open circulation, that may as well be as if the Fed decided to suddenly print billions of dollars.
Now, if you consider wealth by it's actual definition (meaning material goods in their possession, as opposed to net worth, which is really what you're talking about) then no, the richest people do not own 70% of all of the world's wealth, or anything even remotely close to that number. By the way, this is simultaneously why a universal basic income won't do us any favors: The forces of supply and demand determine the price of rent. When people are given more money, then they'll simply outbid the homeless guy who was given the same amount.
That was the whole point. That, and he opened himself up to it, so I felt it necessary to quip (i.e., it was a well timed joke, mainly a slight against the person I replied to.)
It was a well timed joke. Chees, fucking lighten up, asshole.
I didn't post that, ass.
I honestly couldn't care less about what you think of my political affiliations (or lack thereof.) The fact is, the Democratic party's superdelegate system quickly becomes one sided when the party elite make a decision. You know, good and well, that the party elite decided that they wanted a female president, no matter what her problems were. So guess where 100% of the superdelegate votes went? While I'm no fan of Bernie, I can plainly see what happened there.
And I think that if I was partisan towards Republicans, I'd very much have opposite views to many that I espouse often:
- I'm strongly pro net neutrality
- I'm strongly pro cannabis legalization
- I'm strongly against almost everything Trump has done (though some things were good, like making our corporate income tax rates more inline with the rest of the first world nations)
Somebody forgets their history lessons. Try looking up who passed the first Tariff Act, the Embargo Act, the American System, the Civil War Tariffs and the policies of McKinley, Teddy Roosevelt and Hoover.
I see you've never heard of Bernie Sanders. You know, the guy that didn't get any superdelegate votes. You know, for that primary system they use to override popular opinion within their own party so that the party elite get to make all of the decisions, and fuck the rest.
Protectionism is the number one economic issue I end up bashing Democrats about here on slashdot. It's probably no coincidence that labor unions adore protectionism, mainly because, as I often say, it's not about the workers (who end up getting fucked anyways,) rather it's about getting more money and power for the mafi...I mean...union management.
And before Trump, I used to always get downmodded when I would explain why nobody wins when you use tariffs. Now all of a sudden the bad guy likes tariffs, suddenly Democrats hate them (but they still love Bernie, who still loves tariffs.) And no, I'm not a republican, or right wing, or anything else.
"Ironically, the biggest supporters of free trade were the Big Cotton slaveowners."
Right, the Democrats.
You can so long as you wait 12 months after receiving either a blood transfusion or an organ. Others are accepted as well after a 12 month suspension, such as: renting the four dirtiest hookers you can find and having a fivesome, receiving buttsex, and receiving gonorrea. Clamydia, herpes, and genital warts are not crimes however, so you don't have to wait 12 months to donate, as you've already been punished.
Some crimes are beyond redemption, however, including exchanging bodily fluids with an Englishman or a Frenchman even one time since 1980. For this high crime of desecrating your body, you may never donate, and especially in the case of a Frenchman, may God have mercy on your soul.
Understand that he learned his grammar from watching Yoda during his early years, so sometimes you have those moments of "wtf is this guy saying" He said he was, and I quote:
medaling over US elections
He's saying that he was making medals to award to the winners of US elections when the elections were over, only in Yoda speak. This means that he gave Trump a medal, which was his proudest moment in life, hence he mentions Trump occasionally.
First of all, woosh! Secondly, your joke made no sense. Why would a waiter replace parmesan with dandruff? Where would they even get enough? Besides, I'm not an asshole to them, so why would they put that in my food?
Hopefully that response will help you figure out the precise meaning of my joke.
Wow, what an asshole. I'll bet you can't tell the difference between cold beer and urine on the rocks.
Actually the problem is getting Apple fanboys to shut the hell up. This problem has existed since long before iPhone transformed them into iFans. Even before the Newton. Being around Apple fans is like a 24/7 gay pride event.
Yes, you exist, I didn't say otherwise. No, I don't want you to show me your iphone, keep it in your pants.
This is capitalism's Achilles Heel. Businesses are run on short term thinking. Sure your trade secrets are going to get stolen and they are going to use your tech to kick you out of there market in two years, but don't you want to do business in China today? Selling in the Chinese market will increase your stock price next quarter.
You (and the moderators thus far) think you're clever enough to understand the situation with China and how it relates to western economies that you can come up with a statement like this as if it is insightful, but you don't. You think you have more wisdom than business leaders and investors on this, but you don't. Both, by and large, have already considered this, and many other possible outcomes you can't even fathom.
Investors are looking for long term growth, and only long term growth. If they're not, then they're not investors, they're gamblers. You've already shown that your mind can't wrap itself around the idea that investors don't care about just one quarterly report, or even two. (If they do, then they're either new to investing, or are just dumb.) Investors look at many indicators before investing, including the company's strategy for growth. Investors are a finicky bunch as well. If they hear doom and gloom, they are quick to sell. If a company does anything to get an income in the short term at the expense of long term growth, investors will notice and the stock price will fall. They don't care about a quick profit, unless the company is already in liquidation and they plan on receiving the proceeds.
But you know who loves having just one good quarter? Not investors, short sellers. Short sellers are gamblers, and their intention is that the stock price will fall. No business leader likes a short seller.
Nevertheless, in the long term (multigenerational term), it doesn't matter, they are going to figure it out for themselves one way or the other anyway.
You communists keep saying capitalism is all about the short term, and like most things communists say, it's so incredibly false that nobody is ever going to take you seriously, and you wonder why nobody wants to vote for you. (And then communists always wonder why they find themselves having to overthrow democracy to get their way.)
In 1947, communists declared "late stage capitalism" after the rise of the USSR followed by many smaller states converting to communism (nearly all of which were not democratic, were primarily based on USSR intervention, and just like the October revolution, the sadists found themselves in charge.)
Capitalism is alive and well in this long term, scaling to heights that Marx himself never could have imagined, and communism could never have achieved. His vision for a perfect humanity was one where we all had 100% employment in mines, factories, and farms. Well he was almost right: The communists achieved that dream. Meanwhile, the capitalists moved on.
Marx is obsolete.
Forget late stage. Communism reached end stage in the late 80's. It sung its deathrattle during the 90's while billions were liberated from all of the suffering, famine, and destitution it had caused them.
Oh, and learn the difference between "there" and "their".
It's much worse than you think. Such software would have to keep up with every state, municipality, and local government in the US. You're going to have to know which items are taxed at what rate, and whether sales tax applies to certain types of items when combined, and what rate they're taxed at. I bet if somebody took any statistics on these, they'd probably find there are multiple sales tax code changes daily in all of the US.
All of the major tax software companies are no doubt salivating over this. It will cost a lot, and if any rules are proposed to try to even standardize reporting alone, you bet your ass that their lobbyists will kill it, just like what happened with the IRS's proposal to do everybody's taxes for free (mainly because they already have all of the information they need.)
Bleh, edited that poorly, meant I don't understand why some say they rely on Uber, and yet...
The biggest thing I don't understand in this is how people come from south of the border that can't even legally get a job, yet they manage to find enough income to be able to afford to live in a house with money to spare, and still they don't rely on shitty Uber. You know why? Because they actually...try...
That's easy: Don't drive for Uber. Really, if you don't like it, then just don't fucking do it. Personally, I wouldn't pay somebody $2 an hour to drive me around. If they really insisted on doing it to get anything from me, it would be somewhere south of a dollar. Really, that's what it's worth to me.
Oh but you think you "have to" drive for Uber because capitalism and because the corporations and because the government? Usually I offer fixes for that, which have worked for people I know, but too often on slashdot I get replies from people who break down every possible fix and essentially say it's impossible to get any other job, even during a general labor shortage (there's a name for this, it's a personality disorder in the DSMV, don't recall it right now.)
If that's you, then go to therapy. If that's impossible too, then go buy a tent, and go move to Los Angeles or San Francisco. The weather is nice there, working is entirely optional even if you have kids. People do this by the millions there, so don't feel bad about it. You won't be alone as there are many more like you who make all of the same excuses that you do, so you'll have much in common, and you'll get to complain about all of the same things they do. Best of all, if you don't like your neighbors, moving is really easy. Oh, and therapy is free there too.
It depends on what you set your email preferences to. I never did use facebook much, but I always kept getting emails about how so-and-so posted a photo I was tagged in, or liked what the fuck ever, or commented on a post from somebody I don't even know. It never stopped until I was sick of them flooding my inbox and changed the preferences to block all forms of emails.
People know that if they need to get ahold of me, then don't try to message my facebook account.
I'm still trying to figure out why we need yet another branch of the military. If all they do is space, then what how do they engage in combat? That's not military at all. In every branch of the armed forces, every single person has a combat role attached to their military specially. This includes ones whose job description you'd think would never see combat. For example, the ones who play musical instruments for a band (or whatever they do these days) act as prison guards for their combat role.
So what the fuck kind of combat role would a space soldier have? It would be silly to give them veterans benefits for the same reason. Even if you never saw combat in your career, you're still a veteran because you made yourself available. Besides, what do we refer to the personnel as?
Army is soldiers
Navy is semen
Marines are...well...Sailors with guns, or jarheads, or "couldn't be a seal"s
Coast guard is...Sailor of the puddle pirate variety
Air Force is airmen
So what is the space force? Space guys? Space cadets? Roger Ramjets? (Just made sure they have access to women so they don't turn out the way the Navy did) Starmen? (Though I'm pretty sure that is trademarked by DC comics. Or is it Walt Disney?)
And what happens when they get involuntarily separated? Instead of washouts, do they become spacedouts?
That's basically a colon cleaning. It's totally useless otherwise and does nothing for your health, but I can't say I've heard of it being used to remove foreign objects, but it might work, and you don't need any kind of a license to do it.
Especially the kind of foreign objects that were shoved up there too far that one time when you were drunk at that party, pulled your pants down, bent over, and shouted "Go ahead! See what you can fit in there!"
Why an x-ray? Wouldn't ultrasound do?
Rare Earth magnets aren't dangerous to swallow unless you swallow more than one.
I tend to think that if they were christian, then instead of Linux we'd have Temple OS.
It's not so much about feminism, it's social justice, and I'm not using that term pejoratively here or anywhere in this post, and I'm being sincere about this. The complaint about Google is that they aren't meeting enough diversity quotas that social justice warriors say they should. For example, they don't have enough black engineers. This used to annoy me, and normally I'd say what's wrong with merit based hiring? But no more. Google is obviously trying to push social justice with the way they delete and demonetize YouTube videos that have otherwise benign content, including two transexuals that committed the crime of not being left leaning, and two black ladies that were guilty of the same crime. That, and the way Google instills a culture of fear against employees don't de-diversify and join the echo chamber. I think it's time Google ate its own shit.
Silicon Valley is progressive, and California is as well, right? So why doesn't progressive California together, with progressive San Francisco (and its surrounding progressive cities) force progressive Google to start hiring on more diverse talent? Would it not be the progressive thing to do? I'm being serious here. Would that not promote social justice? In fact, why not force them to replace their Chief Diversity Officer with a notable civil rights leader? Obviously their existing CDO isn't doing her job. Really, how can it be argued that she is? Google's diversity numbers are even worse now than they were last year.
Google is mostly white males, which means it is in need of a re-balancing. Not enough black people? Fire enough white guys to make room. Don't worry, they're progressive, they'll understand that this is for the better good, because they also support equality. Not enough latino guys? Fire more white guys. Not enough native americans? Pacific islanders? You know what to do. Asians are over-represented? Don't worry about it, they're minorities, just don't hire any more until their numbers go down to meet the ratio. When dismissing white guys, make sure that the cisexual ones are the first to go. Once the ratios are representative of the population, you can hire white hetereosexual males again, just make sure the ratios remain intact. Again, they're progressives, in progressive California. They'll understand. The progressives know that white males got there from white privilege, and all of this is necessary. Having removed enough white males, this should help balance out the male to female ratio. If not, begin dismissing the minorities of most privilege, i.e. homosexual white males. Don't worry though as it won't come to that, the white population makes up quite a big percentage of the overall population.
I'm being serious about that. I'm a white male and I honestly couldn't care less. Do this with facebook too. Facebook and Google, more than all, should be the first movers, and fine them hard if they don't do this. So be honest, whom among the social justice warriors (again, not being pejorative here) and progressives would not want this? It sets out to accomplish one of your biggest goals. If not, why not?
.
Google's feelings of diversity are just like that of California universities:
Multiple skin colors, all 51 genders,* and all 187 sexual orientations.**
* Diversity of opinion is not permitted.
** Cisexual cismales with white skin must choose one of the other 50 genders and/or one of the 186 other sexualities. Your skin color will be decided by your diversity officer fairly using diversity standard skin tone swatches.