A gap in the other direction begins to appear in candidates with six or more years of experience, however, with white women in tech both asking for less than their white male counterparts and receiving it. Indeed, over time and across the country, white women in tech earn an average of.90 cents for every dollar made by their male peers for the same work.
The trick is you have to read more than the summary.
Newsflash; that isn't discrimination. That's not sexism. That's individuals undervaluing they're worth, and not anyone's fault but the person that does it.
The released emails from the Clinton campaign illustrated behavior that many voters can objectionable, and the only response I've ever heard was to accuse the alleged hackers who stole the data and released it.
ie: shoot the messenger.
Amusingly, your Nixon example is actually more relevant when applied to the whole Clinton email thing.
Hacking management behavior is loads of fun. Give me 6 months with any manager and I can provoke damn near any reaction I want, all the while they think it's their idea.
...why yes, I do enjoy my coffee black, why do you ask?
So...wait...despite excessive incentivizing, women still don't flood into stem fields?
That's so weird, because if you listen to some of the loudest voices today, gender is a social construct with no underlying biology, therefore changing social conditions should result in a change of gendered behaviors.
Are we yet at the point where we can accept there are biological differences between the genders and skin colors which predispose them to certain fields, and thus stop playing the "DIVERSITY" game?
So yes in fact, equality of opportunity SHOULD lead to equality of outcome.
I normally don't respond to ACs, but I was hoping someone would bring this up.
In any homogeneous population group, you'd be absolutely correct. The problem, then, is that we do not have a homogeneous population group, but where you attribute the discrepancy to discrimination, I feel you are dismissing the elephant in the room; biological differences between the groups.
Do you think the NBA has a racism problem because whites represent 25% of the players? Where are the calls for diversity there?
Answer that, and you start to understand why some of us think these calls to prioritize diversity over all less are ridiculous.
No, all I said is it had more to do with who you're friends with.
Unless you're suggesting that you can only be friends with people of the same gender and color as yourself. That may apply to you, but some of us aren't so...uh..."discerning"...when it comes to who our friends are.
But they're still there. What you've described constitutes deep and systematic racism and sexism that place serious obstacles in front of anyone who isn't the right race and gender. Just because no one is doing it "on purpose", that everyone has good intentions and thinks they're doing their best to be fair doesn't mean it isn't happening. It's the result of pervasive unconscious biases.
Prove it. Prove that's what's happening. You are making an extraordinary claim, you must justify it.
The problem is folks get outcomes confused with opportunity. Just because a certain gender or color isn't present in representative numbers in upper management and certain jobs doesn't mean they didn't have the opportunity to pursue that job. Equal Opportunity does not equate to Equal Outcomes, essentially.
Amusingly, what these folks are advocating for is a lowering of the bar which only applies to certain genders or skin colors...which makes them, you guessed it, bigots.
Oh and by the way I'd like to point out that Angela Merkel was called 'Leader of the Free World' by the press last week; that's about the worst black-eye the U.S. could possibly get so far as I'm concerned; the destruction of the credibility of the U.S. is now more or less complete.
Was 9/11 so long ago that you don't remember it well enough to compare it to some rag ( likely with their own bias ) saying someone else is the leader of the free world?
I'm going to go ahead and point out that that seems to be more your problem than anything worth worrying about.
. We're right down there, now, in the muck with so many African and South American countries, that seem to have a regime change every other week. Were that true, then Trump would have been disposed by now. So saying crap like this undermines your point.
Regardless, I can take this as the joke it is because in the 20+ years I've been voting I have never had a candidate worth voting for. They've all been horrible. Yet every damn election cycle we pretend they're some holy figure come to save us, only to say the same thing about the next guy, all without breaking a smile. You can either rage against the idiocy of the voting public, maybe cry a little bit, or you can enjoy the show for what it is. Me, I tried the first couple options for a while, but found it's far more enjoyable to be "in" on the joke.
Here's the thing though; the world isn't ending, and it's never bad as it appears. We'll survive Trump, and the moron after him, and the moron after that. Maybe we'll be a bit wiser for it too.
Happiness in the US is declining and is expected to continue on a downward path, with Donald Trump's policies forecast to deepen the country's social crisis
This line should tell you everything you need to know about the related article.
Look, I get it. Your candidate didn't win and it's upsetting to you. However, throwing little hissy fits every chance you get only serves to reinforce WHY folks had the temerity to vote for trump; the behavior of Hillary supporters ( and, let's face it, Hillary herself ) soured her support outside of her base.
Obviously a lot of people are pretty happy that Trump was elected, and are encouraged by his positions and actions. So the nonsense that happiness is expected to trend downwards is...exaggeration at least.
Note: I'm not a Trump or Hillary supporter. Can't stand any politician, although I will say Trump has been more amusing than I could ever envision Hillary being. The literal crying from Hillary's camp on election night was particularly hilarious.
...but I'm going to say it again: Convenience, convenience, convenience. The market always corrects when you try to impose artificial supply constraints, especially when demand is high.
You'd think people would have learned from watching the music industry go through it's "head in the sand" phase.
A part of me hopes that men in the US, much like those in Japan, are waking up to the terror that is false rape allegations, divorce and family law. Being aware of what *could* happen is like taking 100 ice cold showers while watching an old Richard Simmons workout tape.
Men; you have guilty. If it's your word against hers, I hope you can comfortably reach your ankle.
Slashdot Mirror
Gah!
Knowing me, probably both. I'm having an off day with they're and their.
Looks like I chose the wrong week to stop sniffing glue.
Speaking of reading skills:
A gap in the other direction begins to appear in candidates with six or more years of experience, however, with white women in tech both asking for less than their white male counterparts and receiving it. Indeed, over time and across the country, white women in tech earn an average of .90 cents for every dollar made by their male peers for the same work.
The trick is you have to read more than the summary.
So women ask for less...and they get it.
Newsflash; that isn't discrimination. That's not sexism. That's individuals undervaluing they're worth, and not anyone's fault but the person that does it.
Truly, you have a dizzying intellect.
I don't often get to trot that out one.
The released emails from the Clinton campaign illustrated behavior that many voters can objectionable, and the only response I've ever heard was to accuse the alleged hackers who stole the data and released it.
ie: shoot the messenger.
Amusingly, your Nixon example is actually more relevant when applied to the whole Clinton email thing.
...I actually enjoy these managers.
Hacking management behavior is loads of fun. Give me 6 months with any manager and I can provoke damn near any reaction I want, all the while they think it's their idea.
They were also talking about February...in the central valley, CA.
It doesn't get that hot in February around here. That's how you know something about the story stinks.
Anyone else jump straight to the comments to read the shills? It's a joy to watch them try to spin things.
NBA
So...wait...despite excessive incentivizing, women still don't flood into stem fields?
That's so weird, because if you listen to some of the loudest voices today, gender is a social construct with no underlying biology, therefore changing social conditions should result in a change of gendered behaviors.
Are we yet at the point where we can accept there are biological differences between the genders and skin colors which predispose them to certain fields, and thus stop playing the "DIVERSITY" game?
hahahhahaha
So yes in fact, equality of opportunity SHOULD lead to equality of outcome.
I normally don't respond to ACs, but I was hoping someone would bring this up.
In any homogeneous population group, you'd be absolutely correct. The problem, then, is that we do not have a homogeneous population group, but where you attribute the discrepancy to discrimination, I feel you are dismissing the elephant in the room; biological differences between the groups.
Do you think the NBA has a racism problem because whites represent 25% of the players? Where are the calls for diversity there?
Answer that, and you start to understand why some of us think these calls to prioritize diversity over all less are ridiculous.
No, all I said is it had more to do with who you're friends with.
Unless you're suggesting that you can only be friends with people of the same gender and color as yourself. That may apply to you, but some of us aren't so...uh..."discerning"...when it comes to who our friends are.
You start your own company. Nothin' stopping you.
Then [s]he could make sure to hire and promote the right genders and colors to ensure diversity.
But they're still there. What you've described constitutes deep and systematic racism and sexism that place serious obstacles in front of anyone who isn't the right race and gender. Just because no one is doing it "on purpose", that everyone has good intentions and thinks they're doing their best to be fair doesn't mean it isn't happening. It's the result of pervasive unconscious biases.
Prove it. Prove that's what's happening. You are making an extraordinary claim, you must justify it.
Because who gets promoted to management is entirely based on merit, right?
Sadly no. In my experience, who gets promoted to management has more to do with who you're friends with than actual ability.
Please note that gender and race were not mentioned *once* in the above.
The problem is folks get outcomes confused with opportunity. Just because a certain gender or color isn't present in representative numbers in upper management and certain jobs doesn't mean they didn't have the opportunity to pursue that job. Equal Opportunity does not equate to Equal Outcomes, essentially.
Amusingly, what these folks are advocating for is a lowering of the bar which only applies to certain genders or skin colors...which makes them, you guessed it, bigots.
Aside from this story? I'm thinking specifically of Marissa Mayer.
It's notable that some of the largest reversals of remote work in recent memory have been spearheaded by women.
The irony is delicious.
Oh and by the way I'd like to point out that Angela Merkel was called 'Leader of the Free World' by the press last week; that's about the worst black-eye the U.S. could possibly get so far as I'm concerned; the destruction of the credibility of the U.S. is now more or less complete.
Was 9/11 so long ago that you don't remember it well enough to compare it to some rag ( likely with their own bias ) saying someone else is the leader of the free world?
I'm going to go ahead and point out that that seems to be more your problem than anything worth worrying about.
. We're right down there, now, in the muck with so many African and South American countries, that seem to have a regime change every other week.
Were that true, then Trump would have been disposed by now. So saying crap like this undermines your point.
Regardless, I can take this as the joke it is because in the 20+ years I've been voting I have never had a candidate worth voting for. They've all been horrible. Yet every damn election cycle we pretend they're some holy figure come to save us, only to say the same thing about the next guy, all without breaking a smile. You can either rage against the idiocy of the voting public, maybe cry a little bit, or you can enjoy the show for what it is. Me, I tried the first couple options for a while, but found it's far more enjoyable to be "in" on the joke.
Here's the thing though; the world isn't ending, and it's never bad as it appears. We'll survive Trump, and the moron after him, and the moron after that. Maybe we'll be a bit wiser for it too.
Happiness in the US is declining and is expected to continue on a downward path, with Donald Trump's policies forecast to deepen the country's social crisis
This line should tell you everything you need to know about the related article.
Look, I get it. Your candidate didn't win and it's upsetting to you. However, throwing little hissy fits every chance you get only serves to reinforce WHY folks had the temerity to vote for trump; the behavior of Hillary supporters ( and, let's face it, Hillary herself ) soured her support outside of her base.
Obviously a lot of people are pretty happy that Trump was elected, and are encouraged by his positions and actions. So the nonsense that happiness is expected to trend downwards is...exaggeration at least.
Note: I'm not a Trump or Hillary supporter. Can't stand any politician, although I will say Trump has been more amusing than I could ever envision Hillary being. The literal crying from Hillary's camp on election night was particularly hilarious.
"This isn't an ad; the beauty in the Assistant is that it invites our partners to be our guest and share their tales," a spokesperson said.
You really have to hand it to Google, when they sell out, they go all the way.
...but I'm going to say it again: Convenience, convenience, convenience. The market always corrects when you try to impose artificial supply constraints, especially when demand is high.
You'd think people would have learned from watching the music industry go through it's "head in the sand" phase.
A part of me hopes that men in the US, much like those in Japan, are waking up to the terror that is false rape allegations, divorce and family law. Being aware of what *could* happen is like taking 100 ice cold showers while watching an old Richard Simmons workout tape.
Men; you have guilty. If it's your word against hers, I hope you can comfortably reach your ankle.
Given the pay to play nature of radio, charts only ever really showed who paid the most money for airtime.
They've been meaningless for a long time now.