The alt right - Mod Warning in OP

marienbad

AnGaelach wrote: »

Because you're trying to impose things on people they won't even want. You're artificially stacking the market in favour different groups.

There's 80,000+ coal miners in the US. Since you want the industry to "reflect society", it's going to have to be:

40,000 men and 40,000 women or 80,000 men and 80,000 women.

Okay, so now onto the affect in the industry:

Wages
In scenario 1 80,000 men are now competing for 40,000 jobs. This is going to lead to a huge reduction in wages. You're also going to need to find 40,000 women to fill the female roles (I doubt you'd find 10-15,000). Since women are very unlikely to even want to do those jobs, you'll have to increase the wages for them to go into that job.

Congrats, you've ruined the productivity of the industry by replacing skilled workers with new workers, and you'll ruin the long-term longevity of the industry because those skilled workers will eventually find other places to work - nursing, psychology, caring (historically female-dominant fields). I wonder how a coal miner is going to do as a psychologist.


In scenario 2 you are hiring another 80,000 people which depresses everyone's wage and ruins the market's competitiveness. It's a thing called the diminishing marginal returns on labour.



Your proposals aren't at all thought out, you're just going on gut feelings and a fear of the markets - that if an industry has an under-represented group when compared with society, it's the industries' fault and not the person's own volition.

.

I never go on gut feelings . I am talking about general principles . If they don't apply to a specific industry , lets hear it and we can judge if exemptions should apply .

Firstly and only semi facetiously I don't care if it destroys the coal industry

Secondly , I am not qualified to answer on the US coal industry . That is not dodging your point though . The general trust of positive discrimination is to correct a historic imbalance . Do you disagree with the principle of it ?

For instance was it wrong to force the PSNI to hire more catholics even at the expense of more qualified protestants ?

Count Dooku

marienbad wrote: »

Sometimes that can only be achieved with positive discrimination

I presume next target will be freedom of speech and finally everything will ends in totalitarian society
Communists already tried it and it finished badly for them

osmiumartist

marienbad wrote: »

The general trust of positive discrimination is to correct a historic imbalance . Do you disagree with the principle of it ?

I most certainly do disagree with positive discrimination because I am against discrimination. Just hire the best person for the job. This isn't historical retribution.

AnGaelach

marienbad wrote: »

I never go on gut feelings . I am talking about general principles . If they don't apply to a specific industry , lets hear it and we can judge if exemptions should apply .

Coal is an example. You can apply it to practically every other industry. You'll have turned all the industries on their heads - areas that women dominate will now have to be 50% male and vice versa.

marienbad wrote: »

Secondly , I am not qualified to answer on the US coal industry . That is not dodging your point though . The general trust of positive discrimination is to correct a historic imbalance . Do you disagree with the principle of it ?

Yes. I believe in meritocracy, not socialism or communism. The best person for the job, gets the job.

marienbad wrote: »

For instance was it wrong to force the PSNI to hire more catholics even at the expense of more qualified protestants ?

Yes it was. I don't believe in imposing discriminatory restrictions, but once those restrictions are lifted, there should be no further use of coercion to secure what you what. The State should only step in when something is discriminatory, it should not step in to engage in its own policy of discrimination.

marienbad

Widdershins wrote: »

But we would be continuing historically unfair practices, to make a display of fairness..it's not important to me that any particular sectors of society are represented as long as the jobs are given to the best qualified, as long as people from every sector had the opportunity to qualify themselves to apply for those jobs.

I remember a conversation I had years ago with an educationalist and asking why we were turning out French speakers year and year when we were crying out for German ,Japanese, etc speakers .

And the answer was simple if we had 90% learning French we ended up with 90% of language teacher teaching French . Sometimes if you want change you have to reach down and discriminate in favour of German speaking teachers even if overall they were less qualified . I don't think we ever grasped that nettle in education . But the point is the same .

If some portions of society are historically unfair sometimes you have to reach down to bring about change . The status quo only replicates the status quo .

osmiumartist

marienbad wrote: »

Firstly and only semi facetiously I don't care if it destroys the coal industry

Fine, so you don't care how much damage you do to society.
Now, you agree that women should make up 50% of hod carriers, front line troops and beat Gardai?

osmiumartist

marienbad wrote: »

If some portions of society are historically unfair sometimes you have to reach down to bring about change . The status quo only replicates the status quo .

In that case you are admitting claiming that neither men nor women can ever be objective in candidate appraisal. You are saying that all people are intrinsically sexist. The only question is if you meant to say that?
What about fairness to the individual? You don't give a hoot about that.

marienbad

AnGaelach wrote: »

Coal is an example. You can apply it to practically every other industry. You'll have turned all the industries on their heads - areas that women dominate will now have to be 50% male and vice versa.



Yes. I believe in meritocracy, not socialism or communism. The best person for the job, gets the job.



Yes it was. I don't believe in imposing discriminatory restrictions, but once those restrictions are lifted, there should be no further use of coercion to secure what you what. The State should only step in when something is discriminatory, it should not step in to engage in its own policy of discrimination.

OK then , we know where we stand so we are unlikely to agree .

I don't believe any organisation can correct historic grievances . Inbuilt human bias will see to that . For example an overwhelmingly protestant PSNI can make all the efforts it wants to redress the balance , but guess what years will pass and the rate of progress will be minimal .

Legislation is the only way . Funny how quotas seemed to work isn't is it. What seemed impossible suddenly becomes possible when funding is questioned . First politics and soon to be sport . And all the brouhaha and the roof caving in never seems to happen

osmiumartist

marienbad wrote: »

Legislation is the only way .

What makes you think legislation will be fair when you claim every organisation is sexist? Surely the organisation making the legislation will also be sexist.

marienbad

Count Dooku wrote: »

I presume next target will be freedom of speech and finally everything will ends in totalitarian society
Communists already tried it and it finished badly for them

Wow that is some leap you made there Count Dooku !

Give a black guy or a woman a job and next we are burning books and getting the trains to run on time .

Spare me

AnGaelach

marienbad wrote: »

Legislation is the only way . Funny how quotas seemed to work isn't is it. What seemed impossible suddenly becomes possible when funding is questioned . First politics and soon to be sport . And all the brouhaha and the roof caving in never seems to happen

Yes, and we have legislation in place that makes discrimination illegal. We should not have legislation in place to promote discrimination. However you want to dress it up. Quotas don't work, all you do is lower the bar for everything and end up with sub-optimal industries.

You're quite clueless about how industries and the legal system works, so I'm going to just stop replying to you for now.

AnGaelach

osmiumartist wrote: »

What makes you think legislation will be fair when you claim every organisation is sexist? Surely the organisation making the legislation will also be sexist.

The same person wants to "break up" the "professional cartels" of the legal profession, the medical service, and so forth. It's little more than begrudgery.

osmiumartist

marienbad wrote: »

Give a black guy or a woman a job and next we are burning books and getting the trains to run on time .

To be perfectly honest, insisting every type of job has a 50/50 gender split is pretty dictatorial. What if you need 100,000 soldiers and 90% of the applicants are men? You're going to press-gang another 40,000 women into service, yeah?

Widdershins

marienbad wrote: »

I remember a conversation I had years ago with an educationalist and asking why we were turning out French speakers year and year when we were crying out for German ,Japanese, etc speakers .

And the answer was simple if we had 90% learning French we ended up with 90% of language teacher teaching French . Sometimes if you want change you have to reach down and discriminate in favour of German speaking teachers even if overall they were less qualified . I don't think we ever grasped that nettle in education . But the point is the same .

If some portions of society are historically unfair sometimes you have to reach down to bring about change . The status quo only replicates the status quo .

So there are now two positions instead of one. French teachers, and German teachers.

German teachers must be equally qualified at teaching German as French teachers are qualified to teach French? .
The German teachers are only being hired because of their suitability for the new position, that of German teacher. That's appropriate.
It's not like giving the German teachers the job of teaching the French language because you wanted more German employees.

marienbad

AnGaelach wrote: »

Yes, and we have legislation in place that makes discrimination illegal. We should not have legislation in place to promote discrimination. However you want to dress it up. Quotas don't work, all you do is lower the bar for everything and end up with sub-optimal industries.

You're quite clueless about how industries and the legal system works, so I'm going to just stop replying to you for now.

Really AnGaelach is that your last word ? ad hominem ? , I worked in multinationals for decades at a very high level and at the sharp end so I know exactly how industry works , thank you very much .

Just because someone doesn't agree with you is no reason to lower the bar as you put it

osmiumartist

Widdershins wrote: »

So there are now two positions instead of one. French teachers, and German teachers.

German teachers must be equally qualified at teaching German as French teachers are qualified to teach French? .
The German teachers are only being hired because of their suitability for the new position, that of German teacher. That's appropriate.
It's not like giving the German teachers the job of teaching the French language because you wanted more German employees.

Let me guess, next we'll be told the Dept. Of Education is racist because it hires more English and Irish teachers than Yoruba and Urdu teachers...

osmiumartist

marienbad wrote: »

Really AnGaelach is that your last word ? ad hominem ? , I worked in multinationals for decades at a very high level and at the sharp end so I know exactly how industry works , thank you very much .

Well in that case the only conclusion is that you don't care whether companies and organisations function or not.

marienbad

Widdershins wrote: »

So there are now two positions instead of one. French teachers, and German teachers.

German teachers must be equally qualified at teaching German as French teachers are qualified to teach French? .
The German teachers are only being hired because of their suitability for the new position, that of German teacher. That's appropriate.
It's not like giving the German teachers the job of teaching the French language because you wanted more German employees.

The point I was making is that if you wanted a greater balance of languages on offer you had no choice but to interfere in the applicant pool .

And that means picking the German teacher over the French one even if the French one was better as a teacher

Widdershins

osmiumartist wrote: »

Let me guess, next we'll be told the Dept. Of Education is racist because it hires more English and Irish teachers than Yoruba and Urdu teachers...

I honestly would not be surprised.

AnGaelach

marienbad wrote: »

Really AnGaelach is that your last word ? ad hominem ? , I worked in multinationals for decades at a very high level and at the sharp end so I know exactly how industry works , thank you very much .

Just because someone doesn't agree with you is no reason to lower the bar as you put it

The spaces between your punctuation marks, your poor grammar, and your general lack of understanding about economics leads me to believe otherwise.

Widdershins

marienbad wrote: »

The point I was making is that if you wanted a greater balance of languages on offer you had no choice but to interfere in the applicant pool .

And that means picking the German teacher over the French one even if the French one was better as a teacher

What if the German teacher was terrible?

midnight city

I think the alt right is already tarnished by the likes of Richard Spencer, Andrew Anglin etc.They are clearly racists and i don't think enough people could support their views. With those guys at the forefront they will fail to grow much from their neo nazi origins.

marienbad

AnGaelach wrote: »

The spaces between your punctuation marks, your poor grammar, and your general lack of understanding about economics leads me to believe otherwise.

Ah the grammar Nazi , always a sign when someone is losing a discussion .

AnGaelach

marienbad wrote: »

The point I was making is that if you wanted a greater balance of languages on offer you had no choice but to interfere in the applicant pool .

And that means picking the German teacher over the French one even if the French one was better as a teacher

No, that isn't the same thing as quotas. They are two different markets - teaching German, or teaching French. Your 50% discussion is going to affect individual markets' ability to attract workers.

If there are 100,000 qualified German teachers and 80,000 are male, and there's 100,000 French teachers and 80,000 are female - will this even out since 50% of language teachers are from each gender? So 30,000 males go into French (having no ability to teach it) and vice versa? No.

What you are proposing is having 100,000 German teachers with 80% male - and reducing that to 50% either by increasing the number of female German teachers or by reducing the number of male teachers - until it has a 1:1 ratio.

So you're going to depreciate wages and ruin productivity.



For some reason, I get the feeling you don't even understand your own argument very well.

marienbad

Widdershins wrote: »

What if the German teacher was terrible?

for the German teacher to be terrible all the German teachers would have to be terrible . ( there goes that punctuation mark again )

marienbad

AnGaelach wrote: »

No, that isn't the same thing as quotas. They are two different markets - teaching German, or teaching French. Your 50% discussion is going to affect individual markets' ability to attract workers.

If there are 100,000 qualified German teachers and 80,000 are male, and there's 100,000 French teachers and 80,000 are female - will this even out since 50% of language teachers are from each gender? So 30,000 males go into French (having no ability to teach it) and vice versa? No.

What you are proposing is having 100,000 German teachers with 80% male - and reducing that to 50% either by increasing the number of female German teachers or by reducing the number of male teachers - until it has a 1:1 ratio.

So you're going to depreciate wages and ruin productivity.



For some reason, I get the feeling you don't even understand your own argument very well.

No for some reason you don't understand my argument very well .

The French/German teachers is an example that was given to me of why if change is desired in many cases it doesn't come without help .

osmiumartist

marienbad wrote: »

for the German teacher to be terrible all the German teachers would have to be terrible . ( there goes that punctuation mark again )

But since the pool is smaller there is a greater chance they are all terrible and a bigger chance that the best isn't as good as if the pool was bigger.
You can't change who is allowed to apply for a job without affecting the quality of the applicants unless it is a criteria related to aptitude. It's simply logically impossible.

oscarBravo

oscarBravo wrote: »

...and that's where you missed the point. It's not about resources.

Sand wrote: »

Its a terrible metaphor. If we had resources we don't have, then we could do something we cant do without the resources.

Jesus. Sorry, women and minorities, we can't address your problems because of a lack of resources. Yes, I know, it's not about resources, but people won't shut up about resources anyway, so you're just going to have to keep having problems, because some people are stubbornly wedded to the idea that everything is a zero-sum game.

I honestly can't get my head around such a pig-headed determination to miss the point of the illustration that people resort to counting frigging boxes - even after they're told it's not about resources.

osmiumartist

oscarBravo wrote: »

I honestly can't get my head around such a pig-headed determination to miss the point of the illustration that people resort to counting frigging boxes - even after they're told it's not about resources.

Maybe the problem isn't with them, eh?

oscarBravo

osmiumartist wrote: »

Maybe the problem isn't with them, eh?

Maybe. Did you have anything of substance to add?