Productivity is a measure of output per unit of labour - neither of those directly mean that increased productivity imply the worker not being compensated appropriately. Certainly one approach is to demand extra unpaid labour, but that clearly has limits. Other methods are to be more efficient or introduce machinery.
No. You missed the bit where in your self-righteousness moralistic hectoring you missed that not bailing out the banks would have meant financial Armageddon. Not bailing out Lehman nearly did for the entire system. If we'd saved it, we might well have avoided four years of stagnation. You literally have no fucking clue what you're talking about. Gosh, it would be nice if people took responsibility for what they did. You're a fucking genius. Unfortunately, you're dead wrong, and people like you are a bloody menace.
No, because you don't have a sliver of evidence (I'm good at hiding bodies). On the other hand, there is a welter of statistical evidence that hiring practices are unfair.
Well clearly they aren't, as Google hire a lot less women. But I'm struggling to see legitimate difference in hiring criteria that would result in such a disparity.
There's an even simpler test. Assuming that Google & Yahoo are broadly fishing in the same pool, they should have similar female/minority proportions. They don't.
Yeah, unfortunately the preceding fifty years where you kept hiring those possessing a penis and white skin meant you kind of lost the right to be trusted to just "hire the best candidate".
I'm just asking the question. Do you actually keep records and check them? Or do you just assume you couldn't possibly be biased in any way, at any stage? No, employers are not the only weak link in the chain. Doesn't mean they are never a problem. I also work in a STEM-heavy industry - not IT - and diversity in hiring isn't an issue for us because we work extremely hard at it.
You are correct in aggregate - of course companies cannot hire people who don't exist - but I really struggle to believe that *Google* has 17% female application rates after controlling for education.
No. The point of it is a dig against those who like to treat women as a single homogeneous group with identical thoughts and opinions. Given that man and woman have different etymologies (really) it's a fairly daft idea.
So why is there such a disparity between Google & Yahoo's female proportions? Seriously, none of this shit passes the smell test. Women don't want to do this. Black people don't like doing that. It's utter bullshit from top to bottom. It's not nice to admit there is a massive fucking problem here but the first step really is admitting it.
Does your company actually track applicants through to hiring to actually prove that women don't apply? Or is this something you just tell yourself to make y'all feel better?
If you say the most qualified get jobs, and the jobs are going to men, then the women most be less qualified. No? All I am asking is for you to back that statement up: either show women are underqualified/less motivated. The alternative is that job allocation is actually not 100% meritocratic.
Given that the Yahoos of this world have the pick of the graduate pool (and they don't just hire CS graduates) I'd say that might not be the only thing going on here.
I'm British. We don't subsidise as heavily as heavily as some European countries and we have much more mixed funding, but I'm still not keen on cultural subsidy. Not least because it picks winners and losers - traditional music? Screw you, here's a few million quid for opera. Broad based subsidy via tax law is one thing but throwing millions at 17th century art music sticks in my craw.
Sorry, but I really struggle with the idea that government should be in the business of funding culture. And moreover, this is about introducing new productions, not slimming down old ones.
This is not a case of dispensing with the musicians to make money, this is about staging opera in a time and place where there is no way you could afford to produce a full scale production. And it's not like the avant garde of opera isn't already neck deep in digital production anyway; the ENO has produced stuff like Sunken Garden which integrated orchestra and digital music throughout, and done it brilliantly (from a technical point of view; the show itself was dross).
Slashdot Mirror
I see it using the .co.uk, but not the .com.
Productivity is a measure of output per unit of labour - neither of those directly mean that increased productivity imply the worker not being compensated appropriately. Certainly one approach is to demand extra unpaid labour, but that clearly has limits. Other methods are to be more efficient or introduce machinery.
Oops. Forgot Slashdot and the 21st century don't mix so well.
GÄisÇ dà mÄiguà rén, cÃng xÄnqÃn gÅngzuà de rén tÅu de gÅngzuÃ
No. You missed the bit where in your self-righteousness moralistic hectoring you missed that not bailing out the banks would have meant financial Armageddon. Not bailing out Lehman nearly did for the entire system. If we'd saved it, we might well have avoided four years of stagnation. You literally have no fucking clue what you're talking about. Gosh, it would be nice if people took responsibility for what they did. You're a fucking genius. Unfortunately, you're dead wrong, and people like you are a bloody menace.
You miss out the part where you describe what would have happened in 2007 had the banks not been bailed out.
No, because you don't have a sliver of evidence (I'm good at hiding bodies). On the other hand, there is a welter of statistical evidence that hiring practices are unfair.
Well clearly they aren't, as Google hire a lot less women. But I'm struggling to see legitimate difference in hiring criteria that would result in such a disparity.
So much text and you couldn't answer this one question?
There's an even simpler test. Assuming that Google & Yahoo are broadly fishing in the same pool, they should have similar female/minority proportions. They don't.
Yeah, unfortunately the preceding fifty years where you kept hiring those possessing a penis and white skin meant you kind of lost the right to be trusted to just "hire the best candidate".
You're quite right. I was thinking of male/female, not man/woman.
I'm just asking the question. Do you actually keep records and check them? Or do you just assume you couldn't possibly be biased in any way, at any stage? No, employers are not the only weak link in the chain. Doesn't mean they are never a problem. I also work in a STEM-heavy industry - not IT - and diversity in hiring isn't an issue for us because we work extremely hard at it.
You are correct in aggregate - of course companies cannot hire people who don't exist - but I really struggle to believe that *Google* has 17% female application rates after controlling for education.
No. The point of it is a dig against those who like to treat women as a single homogeneous group with identical thoughts and opinions. Given that man and woman have different etymologies (really) it's a fairly daft idea.
So why is there such a disparity between Google & Yahoo's female proportions? Seriously, none of this shit passes the smell test. Women don't want to do this. Black people don't like doing that. It's utter bullshit from top to bottom. It's not nice to admit there is a massive fucking problem here but the first step really is admitting it.
I am saying the problem is complex and requires some study before one can even have an informed understanding, much less have a strong opinion on it.
Does your company actually track applicants through to hiring to actually prove that women don't apply? Or is this something you just tell yourself to make y'all feel better?
If you say the most qualified get jobs, and the jobs are going to men, then the women most be less qualified. No? All I am asking is for you to back that statement up: either show women are underqualified/less motivated. The alternative is that job allocation is actually not 100% meritocratic.
Given that the Yahoos of this world have the pick of the graduate pool (and they don't just hire CS graduates) I'd say that might not be the only thing going on here.
Can you provide some evidence that the wimmin and minorities are neither motivated nor qualified?
Gosh, I wish I had years of training in multi-jurisdictional legal practice in order to be able to make such bold and sweeping statements.
I'm British. We don't subsidise as heavily as heavily as some European countries and we have much more mixed funding, but I'm still not keen on cultural subsidy. Not least because it picks winners and losers - traditional music? Screw you, here's a few million quid for opera. Broad based subsidy via tax law is one thing but throwing millions at 17th century art music sticks in my craw.
Sorry, but I really struggle with the idea that government should be in the business of funding culture. And moreover, this is about introducing new productions, not slimming down old ones.
This is not a case of dispensing with the musicians to make money, this is about staging opera in a time and place where there is no way you could afford to produce a full scale production. And it's not like the avant garde of opera isn't already neck deep in digital production anyway; the ENO has produced stuff like Sunken Garden which integrated orchestra and digital music throughout, and done it brilliantly (from a technical point of view; the show itself was dross).