|
Eldragon posted:The number of people who overestimate their worth and abilities probably exceeds the number of people getting sweetheart deals. Well, this is the first time I've heard anyone argue that efficient markets thrive best on secrecy, insider information, chokepoints, and a ban on open price discovery. Points for creativity and originality I guess 
|
#
¿
Apr 16, 2014 02:48
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 22, 2024 10:33 |
|
|
Ah yes, the famed "get yourself blackballed from your entire industry" remedy
|
|
#
¿
Apr 16, 2014 07:16
|
|
|
on the left posted:No, what I am saying is that a company could have equal pay, but not a very diverse workforce. You wouldn't hire many women if taking a year off to raise a baby put you behind the top 50 applicants. If a company doesn't want a diverse workforce, they are already discriminating in hiring. Giving workers more negotiating power isn't going to make them discriminate more. They are already trying to get the best workers they can for the lowest price. Nice concern troll though, much better than your usual pathetic attempts to defend exploitation of labor by capital.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 18, 2014 12:50
|
|
|
Chokes McGee posted:I'm not going to lie, I'd use it as an excuse to finally kidney stab a couple of coworkers. Well if your company can't afford to pay high enough wages to attract employees, then you need to stop mooching and build a better business. Why should your employees subsidize your failure  Oh wait no, that argument only works when a worker can't afford to support his family, nevermind, silly me
|
|
#
¿
Apr 19, 2014 06:29
|
|
|
on the left posted:This probably is true though, and doesn't rely on any genetic argument that any race is inferior to others. You can't simply complain that a test is wrong if it creates results that reflect societal divides. I notice that in your usual quest to defend white supremacy you ignored this point by The Warszawa. The Warszawa posted:The problem is that "seems like a pretty good test" is not "is a pretty good test." For example, a 1991 article from the NYT discusses how the well-known General Aptitude Test Battery not only disproportionately screened out minorities, but actually tended to underpredict minority job performance and overpredict white job performance. Any thoughts on that, or are you just going to ignore it and drive ahead with your circular logic about the Divine Justice that success borne of white privilege is a self-justification for white privilege? 
|
|
#
¿
Apr 21, 2014 01:16
|
|
|
on the left posted:A 20+ year old aptitude test doesn't really say much about the idea of aptitude testing in general. Companies use lots of measures that are proxies for aptitude testing (going to a selective college, grades, major), but if you explicitly use aptitude tests, you enter a legal minefield for some reason. It demonstrates that you can't assume that an aptitude test claiming to measure the subject's suitability for a job is actually measuring any such thing, nor that differences in scores between different races are just an objective measure of the underlying competence or inferiority of a certain race. You're question-begging to a ridiculous degree. You were given an explicit counterexample and you just wave it away and assume without any proof at all that aptitude tests "in general" do a good job of showing how inferior black people are.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 21, 2014 02:39
|
|
|
on the left posted:You don't have to be racist to acknowledge that any test that relies on having a decent education is going to disfavor groups that don't have equal access to education. Doubly so for a test that benefits from extracurricular classes or study. But that's precisely one of the problems with "aptitude" testing. To the extent that the test measures general knowledge or even just test-taking ability that doesn't correlate with job performance, then it is unfairly boosting the prospects of a privileged applicant and holding back the oppressed candidate even if they would in reality be equally effective at the job. Naming something "aptitude test" doesn't mean it's actually measuring one's aptitude for a job. Just incuriously assuming that because black people don't do as well on your test that it must mean black people just aren't prepared to do the job instead of investigating whether your test is biased is actually pretty racist. Especially in the face of examples of that very thing happening. Just acknowledging that our educational system is unequal doesn't mean that you can use testing that introduces even more bias above and beyond that systemic inequality and then claim your hiring is "race-blind" because you don't actually claim black people are genetically inferior. This post was probably a waste of time because you'll just dismiss it again and say "Oh in general aptitude tests don't have that problem because  Just World" but hey you never know 
|
|
#
¿
Apr 21, 2014 05:58
|
|
|
on the left posted:This is a dumb criticism though because it applies to practically every metric used in the hiring process. Yes it does. That's what affirmative action is for. You constantly wave inequality away with this "it's not racist because privilege means white men really are the most qualified and it's unjust not to hire the most qualified" schtick, but here, right here you don't even care about actual injustice. You refuse to question the status quo that less qualified white men get hired and promoted over more-qualified minorities. That is racist, you may as well just own it. on the left posted:If discriminating on aptitude tests is bad, is it ok with you to recruit from colleges that discriminate against people with bad aptitude tests? Sure, as long as you take this into account when weighting the resumes of different races on the left posted:I was told by liberal arts graduates that communication skills and ability to write coherently in english is important, so maybe it's a good thing? 
VitalSigns fucked around with this message at 13:06 on Apr 21, 2014 |
|
#
¿
Apr 21, 2014 06:52
|
|
|
ErIog posted:Communication skills are completely separate from language skills. Someone who is bilingual probably has better communication skills than someone who doesn't even if their ability in the language in question is not quite to the level of a native speaker. No no, see if you can't make your way through a timed test with no opportunity to look up unfamiliar words then that just proves that white men are better at everything. Maybe weeding out "the wrong kind of people" is a good thing.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 21, 2014 07:00
|
|
|
Jarmak posted:Holy poo poo dude, I mean ya there's issues with aptitude tests being skewed because of cultural familiarity, but you can't have a racial disparity in access to education and training and not have a racial disparity is job qualification. The only way one of those things doesn't de facto follow the other is if you argue that training/education have no impact on job qualification, which I think is a ridiculous position to take That would be a ridiculous position to take, which is why I never took that strawman position. Aptitude tests certainly correlate to job performance, but to the extent that they are influenced by other factors, they tend to entrench privilege and disqualify minorities over and above the inequities that already exist. Direct examples of that have already been posted, which is why I take such exception to on-the-left's almost religious insistence that any racial skew in test results must be revealing the underlying merit, and that anyone worried about bias is just strangling business with political correctness. Look: on the left posted:This probably is true though, and doesn't rely on any genetic argument that any race is inferior to others. You can't simply complain that a test is wrong if it creates results that reflect societal divides. Bask in the shameless question-begging  Jarmak posted:despite all the amusing anecdotes about your friend named William who's wicked smart. I haven't posted a single anecdote  Are you just imagining posts I've made that you would like to take down?Jarmak posted:I also highly doubt anyone in this thread would take the position that racial disparity in education isn't a big problem that needs addressing. Hey if he wants to discuss how he would correct for those disparities I would love that, but so far all I've seen from on-the-left is him using our broken educational system as an excuse for why white men really deserve the jobs and promotions along with whining about how every suggestion put forward to remedy this is unfair to the beneficiaries of our purely meritocratic job market.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 21, 2014 17:49
|
|
|
Jarmak posted:Do you guys have some sort of secret slap fight you'd like to let the rest of the class in on or something? He didn't say anything of the sort Well then I don't know what to tell you. Concern-trolling about how hiring "the best" workers opens you up to a politically correct lawsuit, brazenly ignoring actual evidence of racial bias in favor of insisting that all differences are due to educational disparity, and then putting forth zero ideas on how to correct for that unfairness so everyone actually does get equal opportunity are some pretty big red flags to me that he is not interested in reforming the system and is just an apologist for it. But if you disagree, fine, I'll drop it. He can post his remedies to the problem of systemic discrimination in the workforce if he wants. For a broader point though, since you do accept the necessity of reform, the arguments he is making are the same old tired ones that appear on the surface to be concerned with "fairness" but in reality are used every step of the way to stymie progress and entrench an unjust system. "Businesses should hire the best person for the job regardless of race. It's a shame that the university system failed some people, but you shouldn't penalize the successful people by giving the failures an advantage in hiring" ... "Universities should admit the best students regardless of race. It's a shame that poor secondary schools failed some people, but you shouldn't penalize the successful people by giving the failures an advantage in applications" ... "We should be able to fund our high school locally. It's a shame that some people are poor, but you shouldn't penalize the successful people by sending their tax money to the other side of town. If my neighborhood wants to pay a local tax to improve the local school for our children we should be able to, and other neighborhoods can do the same" ... "We shouldn't have to bus our children across town when we pay for a good neighborhood school . It's a shame that some schools are poorer, but you shouldn't penalize the successful people making them bus their children so other parents didn't earn it can send their kids up here" etc, etc. When you start with the premise that having privilege means you deserve everything it got you, then every proposal to create a more equitable society can be cast as taking something from those who have "earned it" and giving to those who didn't. Every single time it's the same "well I didn't cause this situation that is currently benefiting me, so why is it my responsibility to sacrifice anything to help those who are getting hosed over?"
|
|
#
¿
Apr 21, 2014 19:00
|
|
|
No no, secret payscales are a tremendous advantage to workers in salary negotiations. That's why businesses are so keen to make discussing pay a firable offense; it's in the Enlightened Self Interest of the capitalist class to make sure their laborers are compensated according to the value of their work, so they strive to make sure no worker inadvertently squanders that advantage.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 22, 2014 03:42
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 22, 2024 10:33 |
|
|
It seems like cheating on a collusion deal would be self-defeating. The whole point of the deal was to limit what you need to pay...and then you voluntarily pay more anyway? Yeah okay maybe not as much as if you are fairly competing, but is the advantage that great? You can only poach so many high-achieving compsci grads from under Google's nose before they get suspicious or feel forced to start cheating themselves to get the people they want.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 29, 2014 13:49
|
|