No, that is not an assumption. If there is a quality difference, you can pay differently. But if both men and women get 80% perfect marks on their performance reviews, you are going to have a hard time arguing in court that the men are better and deserved more money.
If the women are lower quality, they should have worse performance reviews, more written warnings to improve, and documented lower productivity. If they are developers, do they have fewer code commits? Are they more likely to fail code reviews? Does their code have more bugs?
When you go to court, you need objective evidence.
Was "negotiating skills" listed in the job advertisement? Is it part of the written job description? Is it a criteria in performance reviews? Do those performance reviews document that women are indeed worse at their jobs?
If not, you are going to have a hard time convincing a judge that you have a valid excuse for paying men more.
If the base rate is the same and the man argues for a higher amount due to being a better negotiator that is legal.
If one man does this, it is legal. If 100 men do this, and your company now has a systematic pay difference between equally qualified men and women, that is not legal. The police are not going to come and kick your door down, but if you get sued by a class action lawyer, you are likely to lose.
Hydrogen wins when you need to store store truly massively amounts of excess energy
Actually, it is usually not the best solution. Pumped storage and compressed air have better efficiency and need less capital investment. Vanadium-redox will give much better efficiency, and can scale with just a bigger tank.
If hydrogen made sense for grid storage, profit seeking companies would be doing it. They aren't.
Hydrogen storage only makes sense when weight and/or power density are more important than efficiency.
I wonder how long the Democrats will take before they realize that when you fester entire islands with windmills you are in fact changing the wind
There are two solutions to this problem:
1. For every turbine erected, cut down a tree, so the total wind blockage remains constant. Ban the planting of new trees.
2. Force Republicans to learn enough math and science so they don't look like idiots when they think these turbines will have a non-negligible effect on the exawatts of power in the North Atlantic trade winds.
I mean, I don't really know of any company, that pays everyone with same job title exactly the same.
That's fine. There is no requirement to "pay everyone the same". There is also no general law against discrimination based on hair length, nose rings, or shoe size. But there are laws against systematic discrimination based on gender, race, and religion.
If that was a woman, she'll always be paid less than 1 an 3.
That's fine. 1 out of 3 is not enough to show any sort of systematic discrimination.
But if you have 100 female engineers, and 300 male engineers, and the females are paid less despite equal performance reviews, you aren't going to get out of a lawsuit by saying "Hey, they were bad negotiators".
Characterizing it as discrimination, with the implication of active bias, is not helpful.
Discrimination against a protected class is illegal whether it is "active" or not.
Most discrimination is passive, and unintentional. That doesn't make it legal.
People identify with and tend to socialize with people like themselves. So if management is full of white guys, they will mentor and promote other white guys. The company should have an active process to ensure this is not discriminatory. If they don't, they're gonna wind up in court, and a class action lawyer will get a big check.
Could it possible be that women in general, are not as good at negotiating their own salaries as men?
Irrelevant. It is illegal to pay men and women systematically differently based on any other criteria but job performance. Unless they are salespeople or professional negotiators, paying them differently based on "ability to negotiate" is illegal.
Perhaps they aren't as aggressive when asking for raises, etc once they are employed?
Again, willingness to ask for a raise is not a valid criteria for discrimination. Women are less aggressive at asking for raises. So are black people, often because they feel less secure in their job. That doesn't justifiy discrimination.
That's a bizarre way of looking at things. Sounds like someone trying to rationalize wasting money
Except it may not be a waste. Netflix spends much of their revenue on original content. So you pay a little more, and you get more quality entertainment.
Regardless of whether you think government spending is too high or too low, I think we can all agree that none if should be going to goddamn social media.
Not only would it be an absurd waste of tax dollars, but it would give the government (Donald Trump for now) leverage over what is published, promoted, or suppressed. This is the way to destroy democracy, not save it.
Taxpayer funded subsidies for social media is such a profoundly stupid idea, that anything else this guy has to say can be dismissed. He has no credibility.
Well, Turkey is a capitalist country and they blocked Wikipedia too.
Capitalist countries can be repressive.
Socialist countries have to be repressive.'
If they aren't, it is only a matter of time until grandma starts growing tomatoes in her backyard and selling them to her neighbors, and then the whole system comes crashing down.
So pointing to Mussolini and pretending he was somehow the opposite of socialist or communist is a bit bizarre.
Communism and Fascism are not opposites. They are almost the same thing. Totalitarianism is totalitarianism. The main difference between extreme left and extreme right is how they justify their policies. The left says is is for "the good of the people" while the right says it is for "the good of the country". But that doesn't make much difference to the people starving in the death camps.
Why do all the countries and non-Chinese seem to want a say in what services Chinese people get access to?
Because the "Chinese Model" of authoritarian state capitalism is the biggest challenge to Western liberal democracy. It is an enticing model to the leaders of many developing countries who want prosperity without freedom.
It isn't just about China, it is about the future of humanity.
Why is not having Google there to provide info better than having them there?
It isn't. Google should stay in China. It is better them to be there and be engaged. The idealism of the protesters is misdirected.
Our way of life requires millions of people to break the law in order to pick our strawberries, butcher our hogs, and extinguish our fires. We have an immoral system, and we need to fix it.
Slashdot Mirror
You're assuming they're equally qualified
No, that is not an assumption. If there is a quality difference, you can pay differently. But if both men and women get 80% perfect marks on their performance reviews, you are going to have a hard time arguing in court that the men are better and deserved more money.
If the women are lower quality, they should have worse performance reviews, more written warnings to improve, and documented lower productivity. If they are developers, do they have fewer code commits? Are they more likely to fail code reviews? Does their code have more bugs?
When you go to court, you need objective evidence.
Was "negotiating skills" listed in the job advertisement? Is it part of the written job description? Is it a criteria in performance reviews? Do those performance reviews document that women are indeed worse at their jobs?
If not, you are going to have a hard time convincing a judge that you have a valid excuse for paying men more.
If the base rate is the same and the man argues for a higher amount due to being a better negotiator that is legal.
If one man does this, it is legal. If 100 men do this, and your company now has a systematic pay difference between equally qualified men and women, that is not legal. The police are not going to come and kick your door down, but if you get sued by a class action lawyer, you are likely to lose.
Hydrogen wins when you need to store store truly massively amounts of excess energy
Actually, it is usually not the best solution. Pumped storage and compressed air have better efficiency and need less capital investment. Vanadium-redox will give much better efficiency, and can scale with just a bigger tank.
If hydrogen made sense for grid storage, profit seeking companies would be doing it. They aren't.
Hydrogen storage only makes sense when weight and/or power density are more important than efficiency.
Lithium batteries have a round-trip efficiency of about 95%.
For hydrogen, it is about 60%.
So lithium wins for most applications.
Hydrogen wins when weight is a really big concern. So it may make sense for aviation.
Hydrogen also scales well, since big tanks have a better volume-to-area ratio. So it may make sense for ships.
For static applications like grid-storage, sodium-ion or vanadium-redox may be better than either lithium or hydrogen.
But for cars or smaller, lithium batteries are the way to go. You will never see a hydrogen fuel cell in a cell phone.
I wonder how long the Democrats will take before they realize that when you fester entire islands with windmills you are in fact changing the wind
There are two solutions to this problem:
1. For every turbine erected, cut down a tree, so the total wind blockage remains constant. Ban the planting of new trees.
2. Force Republicans to learn enough math and science so they don't look like idiots when they think these turbines will have a non-negligible effect on the exawatts of power in the North Atlantic trade winds.
I mean, I don't really know of any company, that pays everyone with same job title exactly the same.
That's fine. There is no requirement to "pay everyone the same". There is also no general law against discrimination based on hair length, nose rings, or shoe size. But there are laws against systematic discrimination based on gender, race, and religion.
If that was a woman, she'll always be paid less than 1 an 3.
That's fine. 1 out of 3 is not enough to show any sort of systematic discrimination.
But if you have 100 female engineers, and 300 male engineers, and the females are paid less despite equal performance reviews, you aren't going to get out of a lawsuit by saying "Hey, they were bad negotiators".
Characterizing it as discrimination, with the implication of active bias, is not helpful.
Discrimination against a protected class is illegal whether it is "active" or not.
Most discrimination is passive, and unintentional. That doesn't make it legal.
People identify with and tend to socialize with people like themselves. So if management is full of white guys, they will mentor and promote other white guys. The company should have an active process to ensure this is not discriminatory. If they don't, they're gonna wind up in court, and a class action lawyer will get a big check.
Could it possible be that women in general, are not as good at negotiating their own salaries as men?
Irrelevant. It is illegal to pay men and women systematically differently based on any other criteria but job performance. Unless they are salespeople or professional negotiators, paying them differently based on "ability to negotiate" is illegal.
Perhaps they aren't as aggressive when asking for raises, etc once they are employed?
Again, willingness to ask for a raise is not a valid criteria for discrimination. Women are less aggressive at asking for raises. So are black people, often because they feel less secure in their job. That doesn't justifiy discrimination.
That's not the companies' fault....
Yes it is.
There is no proof that the pay difference is caused by gender discrimination as opposed to performance.
The plaintiffs don't need "proof". This is a civil suit. The outcome is based on the preponderance of the evidence.
If the disparity is really as wide as the summary claims, Oracle will have a hard time showing it is a statistical fluke.
That's a bizarre way of looking at things. Sounds like someone trying to rationalize wasting money
Except it may not be a waste. Netflix spends much of their revenue on original content. So you pay a little more, and you get more quality entertainment.
It's an opinion site that willfully uses news topics to call itself a news site, but it does not ever report the news objectively.
Subjective/biased reporting is not the same as "fake".
It isn't false just because you disagree with it.
How much money has he made from FB?
Not enough. So he has to say outrageous nonsense to sell his book.
Regardless of whether you think government spending is too high or too low, I think we can all agree that none if should be going to goddamn social media.
Not only would it be an absurd waste of tax dollars, but it would give the government (Donald Trump for now) leverage over what is published, promoted, or suppressed. This is the way to destroy democracy, not save it.
Taxpayer funded subsidies for social media is such a profoundly stupid idea, that anything else this guy has to say can be dismissed. He has no credibility.
or foxnews.com or infowars.com or dailykos.com or slate.com....pick your poison.
Neither Fox News nor Slate are fake news sites. They certainly have biases (in opposite directions), but that is not the same as being "fake".
Didn't both of those countries have a sharp drop in gun crime when they too passed firearms bans recently?
No, of course not. Neither did Venezuela.
Do you really believe that criminals in a violent country, or their potential victims, are going to obey a "ban"?
China stated that material wealth had to come first
The government of China never said any such thing. They have never declared an intention to democratize, regardless of how prosperous they become.
Because on balance, it indicates that the increase in violent crime is due primarily to robbery
Venezuela has the 3rd highest homicide rate in the world. 1st and 2nd are El Salvador and Honduras, USA is 90th.
Well, Turkey is a capitalist country and they blocked Wikipedia too.
Capitalist countries can be repressive.
Socialist countries have to be repressive.'
If they aren't, it is only a matter of time until grandma starts growing tomatoes in her backyard and selling them to her neighbors, and then the whole system comes crashing down.
We keep thinking 'oh no we got it right *this* *time*'. No you have not. Power corrupts almost in all cases.
Here's a handy flowchart.
So pointing to Mussolini and pretending he was somehow the opposite of socialist or communist is a bit bizarre.
Communism and Fascism are not opposites. They are almost the same thing. Totalitarianism is totalitarianism. The main difference between extreme left and extreme right is how they justify their policies. The left says is is for "the good of the people" while the right says it is for "the good of the country". But that doesn't make much difference to the people starving in the death camps.
Communism is a form of authoritarianism
Communism is a form of totalitarianism.
Authoritarians ban any challenge to their authority, but otherwise people are mostly free to do what they want.
Totalitarians attempt to control every aspect of life.
Stalin was totalitarian. Putin is authoritarian.
Mao was totalitarian. Xi is authoritarian.
Why do all the countries and non-Chinese seem to want a say in what services Chinese people get access to?
Because the "Chinese Model" of authoritarian state capitalism is the biggest challenge to Western liberal democracy. It is an enticing model to the leaders of many developing countries who want prosperity without freedom.
It isn't just about China, it is about the future of humanity.
Why is not having Google there to provide info better than having them there?
It isn't. Google should stay in China. It is better them to be there and be engaged. The idealism of the protesters is misdirected.
It is a problem when you can't boycott the "do no evil" company because there is no competition.
There is Baidu.
All you have are excuses for breaking the laws.
No, I am saying the laws should be changed.
Our way of life requires millions of people to break the law in order to pick our strawberries, butcher our hogs, and extinguish our fires. We have an immoral system, and we need to fix it.