[QUOTE=thisispain;35010304][b]apparently it does because you suggested that someone in a ripped t-shirt and dirty jeans earned a job over you due to quota's.[/b]
so not only are you being extremely defensive, you also can't even get what you wanted to say straight.[/QUOTE]
The bolded part made so little sense I'm not even going to react to that, and I'm being defensive because you keep ripping on everything I'm saying. In the article it states that ""I am not a great fan of quotas. However, I like the results they bring," Ms Reding said."
Hence the quotas influence who gets a job and who doesn't. The quota only works for gender. Am I wrong to assume that companies will thus employ more women, not because they are more qualified, but merely because the quotas are helping them get more money?
[QUOTE=The Baconator;35010343]How do quotas work in real life?[/QUOTE]
a company analyses how many women they have compared to men and they say "let's try to get more women in".
this could mean a lot of thing but eventually the goal is to have more women on the workforce. it does not mean replacing men's jobs with unqualified bimbo's. that's just a lie.
[QUOTE=thisispain;35010385]a company analyses how many women they have compared to men and they say "let's try to get more women in".
this could mean a lot of thing but eventually the goal is to have more women on the workforce. it does not mean replacing men's jobs with unqualified bimbo's. that's just a lie.[/QUOTE]
That is also not what I said. They are "encouraging" human resources to favour women over men, usually with monetary incentives.
And then they realize there actually is no such thing as sole positive discrimination.
[QUOTE=deltasquid;35010309]I meant that at no point I said all women were unprofessional.[/QUOTE]
what did you mean by the slovenly part of the word then
[QUOTE=deltasquid;35010360]The bolded part made so little sense I'm not even going to react to that, [/QUOTE]
you didn't like a dumb slut getting job over you.
so obviously you are saying that someone, using your words, unqualified and "wearing a ripped t-shirt and dirty jeans" shouldn't get a job. i think that's a load of shit and you were just shooting off a misogynistic remark.
[QUOTE=deltasquid;35010360]Hence the quotas influence who gets a job and who doesn't. The quota only works for gender. Am I wrong to assume that companies will thus employ more women, not because they are more qualified, but merely because the quotas are helping them get more money?[/QUOTE]
yes you are wrong to assume that because getting quota money doesn't replace the lost productivity.
let me break it down so you absolutely understand:
what a company means by "qualified" is someone that can garner them enough productivity to earn a profit. this is called human capital.
the amount of money that quota's give is not enough to replace the productivity lost by not having human capital. a business doesn't work if it doesn't have workers that are productive.
so a company isn't going to hire someone unproductive because that's contrary to the reason why the business exists which is to make more money.
ergo to say that people who are qualified won't get hired is completely flat-out wrong because ultimately the business needs qualified people to function, a business cannot survive with "quota" money.
we don't live in a command economy, we live in a capitalist system, where capital is acquired and used to create a profit.
[QUOTE=Lambeth;35010431]what did you mean by the slovenly part of the word then[/QUOTE]
That if a person comes apply to a job but looks and acts like someone who doesn't give two shits about their appearance, then the employer should theoretically speaking get a bad impression of the person.
[QUOTE=deltasquid;35010218]
Maybe I'm wrong about this, but coming to a job interview in a ripped T-shirt and dirty jeans usually doesn't work in your favour.[/QUOTE]
I'm not one to stick up for thisispain, but what are you even going on about any more. In your original post you used the word "slut" in a stupid way, thisispain called you out on it and now you're just defending yourself for no reason. You could've just said in your first post some dumb woman or something less offensive but nope.
Plus there's no way you meant it in the "careless and messy" way.
[QUOTE=thisispain;35010475]ergo to say that people who are qualified won't get hired is completely flat-out wrong because ultimately the business needs qualified people to function, a business cannot survive with "quota" money.[/QUOTE]
With that logic, quotas aren't going to change anything because the company still gets less money than they do when hiring a competent person.
Edit: okay fine, let me retract that slut statement then.
[QUOTE=deltasquid;35010489]That if a person comes apply to a job but looks and acts like someone who doesn't give two shits about their appearance, then the employer should theoretically speaking get a bad impression of the person.[/QUOTE]
And women are like this? just admit you were being misogynistic and we can move on
And then ten years later,there's going to be 'masculinist' movements.
doop
[QUOTE=Lambeth;35010531]And women are like this?[/QUOTE]
Again, I did not say this. I said that it is possible that one woman has this as a bad quality amongst others.
[QUOTE=znk666;35010546]And then ten years later,there's going to be 'masculinist' movements.[/QUOTE]
There's already Men's Rights Awareness people
[QUOTE=Lambeth;35010431]what did you mean by the slovenly part of the word then[/QUOTE]
So he made a bad choice of words, get over it.
[QUOTE=deltasquid;35010514]With that logic, quotas aren't going to change anything because the company still gets less money than they do when hiring a competent person.[/QUOTE]
exactly you are starting to understand it!
a company does get less money when hiring an incompetent person, that's why they simply don't do it.
but quota's don't have anything to do with the hiring part, that's a complete myth.
rather quota's deal with what they want to hire. a business doesn't just open its doors and say "we'll take anyone with qualifications". they sit through and decide what they need to run the business.
a quota deals with that end so a business says "in this past fiscal year we have only hired 20 women, in the next fiscal year while we are expanding, let's try to hire 30 more women".
that doesn't mean that anyone looses a job. that simply means that the opportunity that might not have been there before pops up for a woman. that also doesn't imply that a man can't get that job because they need the jobs.
[QUOTE=deltasquid;35010566]Again, I did not say this. I said that it is possible that one woman has this as a bad quality amongst others.[/QUOTE]
of course it's possible. why assume this though?
[QUOTE=thisispain;35010586]exactly you are starting to understand it!
a company does get less money when hiring an incompetent person, that's why they simply don't do it.
but quota's don't have anything to do with the hiring part, that's a complete myth.
rather quota's deal with what they want to hire. a business doesn't just open its doors and say "we'll take anyone with qualifications". they sit through and decide what they need to run the business.
a quota deals with that end so a business says "in this past fiscal year we have only hired 20 women, in the next fiscal year while we are expanding, let's try to hire 30 more women".
that doesn't mean that anyone looses a job. that simply means that the opportunity that might not have been there before pops up.[/QUOTE]
although i understand the noble sentiment behind it, we're talking about the state giving quotas to the company, not the company giving quotas to themselves. This wouldn't be as much of a problem if companies had an endless pool of positions open to hand out like candy. Imagine twenty accountants retire and free up twenty identical jobs in a certain company. You have twenty competent men, ten competent women, five incompetent women and thirty incompetent men applying for the jobs. Logically speaking, the company should hire the top twenty qualified persons. Realistically, the company will hire the ten competent women for their quota and then the ten most competent men, even if some of the men who get left over were more competent than some women that got in. Taken to the extreme, they might even hire some of the incompetent women over the incompetent men if the quota helps.
[editline]5th March 2012[/editline]
[QUOTE=Lambeth;35010635]of course it's possible. why assume this though?[/QUOTE]
I did not assume it. you are simply nitpicking at this point. If there's ONE (1) job, there's THREE (3) applicants; me, an average guy, a woman who is dumber and less professional than me (though might still be capable as a workforce), and another guy who is dumber and less professional, the quota might nudge the person hiring us to hire the woman. While not dramatic, it's still a form of discrimination.
yeah except your constant steam of ridiculous examples always rely on women being, on average, less competent than men, and having a clear cut "this candidate is better" scenario
which is an idiotic premise that discredits any argument based off of it
[QUOTE=Lambeth;35010635]of course it's possible. why assume this though?[/QUOTE]
I did not assume it. you are simply nitpicking at this point. If there's ONE (1) job, there's THREE (3) applicants; me, an average guy, a woman who is dumber and less professional than me (though might still be capable as a workforce), and another guy who is dumber and less professional, the quota might nudge the person hiring us to hire the woman. While not dramatic, it's still a form of discrimination.
Besides, I wouldn't mind if the woman were more competent/likeable/a combination of the previous than me. That'd be logical.
[quote]Realistically, the company will hire the ten competent women for their quota and then the ten most competent men, even if some of the men who get left over were more competent than some women that got in. Taken to the extreme, they might even hire some of the incompetent women over the incompetent men if the quota helps. [/quote]
but when we look at the statistical evidence we can see that isn't true. what is happening is that a company wants to hire 20 competent people and end up hiring men by a far larger amount while the fewer women earn only 75% (in the US) compared to men. add onto this the institutionalized sexual harassment and you've got yourself a hostile environment which also makes women not want to to get those jobs.
affirmative action has helped a bit because it forced people to hire based on what the demographics are instead of what their own prejudices allow.
[QUOTE=Metanar;35010737]yeah except your constant steam of ridiculous examples always rely on women being, on average, less competent than men, and having a clear cut "this candidate is better" scenario
which is an idiotic premise that discredits any argument based off of it[/QUOTE]
Maybe I'm just really screwing up the way I'm expressing myself. It'd be simpler if I simply said "I am average. This other woman applying for the job is equally average. They hire her because she is a woman and they have a quota."
Does this seriously not strike you as discriminatory?
[QUOTE=deltasquid;35010757]the quota might nudge the person hiring us to hire the woman.[/QUOTE]
and by explaining the simple mechanics of capitalist economics i explained why this is simply not true.
i can sympathize with people not getting jobs, but picking and laying the burden on groups that already have less of a shot isn't fair. it's fighting the wrong fight, like fighting poverty by firebombing jewish businesses.
No. Seems to me if they need to fill a quota they've hired plenty of men already, doesn't really sound like discrimination to me. Just sounds like they want to make it fairer.
[QUOTE=thisispain;35010776]but when we look at the statistical evidence we can see that isn't true. what is happening is that a company wants to hire 20 competent people and end up hiring men by a far larger amount while the fewer women earn only 75% (in the US) compared to men. add onto this the institutionalized sexual harassment and you've got yourself a hostile environment which also makes women not want to to get those jobs.
affirmative action has helped a bit because it forced people to hire based on what the demographics are instead of what their own prejudices allow.[/QUOTE]
Ah, you're talking about America. Maybe I'm wrong, but I get the impression that in Belgium at least, the situation seems different.
[QUOTE=Metanar;35010737]yeah except your constant steam of ridiculous examples always rely on women being, on average, less competent than men, and having a clear cut "this candidate is better" scenario
which is an idiotic premise that discredits any argument based off of it[/QUOTE]
No it's not.
It's based around the premise that out of 2 equally qualified people, a woman would win unfairly.
[QUOTE=SataniX;35010831]No it's not.
It's based around the premise that out of 2 equally qualified people, a woman would win unfairly.[/QUOTE]
I'm not entirely sure you can read. He quite clearly said that better qualified men would be excluded, therefore the women, are on average, less well qualified. Which is a load of shit.
[QUOTE=thisispain;35010803]and by explaining the simple mechanics of capitalist economics i explained why this is simply not true.
i can sympathize with people not getting jobs, but picking and laying the burden on groups that already have less of a shot isn't fair. [b]it's fighting the wrong fight, like fighting poverty by firebombing jewish businesses.[/b][/QUOTE]
Classy.
Anyhow, I'm going to sleep. I still think that gender shouldn't influence who gets hired under any circumstances, and it seems the quota does just that.
This is like treating the symptoms of a problem, not the problem itself.
Good intentions, but they should [B]REALLY[/B] focus on [I]slowly but surely[/I] breaking the [I]"good old boys"[/I] mentality instead of just shoehorning in qualified women with various legislations.
And this'll most likely create a bigger fight between the two sexes and thus could risk ruining the work environment of the businesses.
Again, good intentions but that's it.
[QUOTE=deltasquid;35010825]Ah, you're talking about America. Maybe I'm wrong, but I get the impression that in Belgium at least, the situation seems different.[/QUOTE]
[url]http://www.state.gov/j/drl/rls/hrrpt/2010/eur/154415.htm[/url]
[quote]Economic discrimination against women continued. During the year the Institute for the Equality of Men and Women released a survey (based on 2007 data) showing an average gap of 11 percent in the gross wages paid to men and women. The gap was 27 percent for white-collar and 16 percent for blue-collar workers. The gap was smaller in the public sector, where female contract workers earned 7 percent less than their male colleagues. Female statutory civil servants earned 1 percent more than their male colleagues. [/quote]
i've only visited belgium once, couldn't be bothered beyond Antwerp, but it's very hard to believe that the situation is that different.
[editline]5th March 2012[/editline]
[QUOTE=deltasquid;35010867]it seems the quota does just that.[/QUOTE]
so the whole bloody essay on why that's economically incorrect was done for no reason, thanks a lot.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
