ALL HAIL PRESIDENT TRUMP

"

1453R wrote:

"

ScrotieMcB wrote:

"

Anonymous1749704 wrote:

The simplest example is male vs female wages: if there's two employee candidates with the exact same credentials, one male one female, the male has a statistically higher likelihood to get hired. The reason for this is pregnancy. From an employers standpoint this is a risk factor that costs money, can possibly be difficult to deal with and yields zero benefits to the company itself.

1. That's not technically wages, but hiring probability.
2. You say the reason is (risk of) pregnancy. Is this an illogical reason, or a realistic one?
3. Are employers allowed to ask probing questions regarding risk of pregnancy - and if not, why not? - such as: Are you on birth control (preferred answer: yes)? What is your sexual orientation (preferred answers: asexual, lesbian)? Are you sterile from tubal ligation or any other means (preferred answer: yes)? Are you sexually active or plan to be in the future (preferred answer: no)? Or how about cutting straight to the chase and waiving family leave privileges?
4. In the event a woman refuses questioning to better determine risk of pregnancy effecting job attendance - as is her right to refuse - does she not invite employers to use generalized risk assessment upon her due to her individual lack of candor?

Is it not slightly disgusting to anyone else that this particular process assumes that women are not right when they demand competitive compensation with identically qualified males due to the abstract idea that they might some day claim their intrinsic right to bear children?

You say identically qualified, then you bring up their right to disqualify themselves in the future.

"

1453R wrote:

If a woman wants the option of maternity leave in her contract she should be able to negotiate for it. That maternity leave would be part of her compensation, and would ideally be equivalent in value to the woman to the increased pay/benefits she gives up to claim it as compared to an equally qualified man. If a woman doesn't want maternity leave, then as Scrotie says: dispense with it and pay the woman what she's actually worth, instead of shortchanging her because of the 'risk' of her getting knocked up. If she gets pregnant after dispensing with maternity leave in her contract, then that was her decision to make and she can deal with the consequences.

I agree completely.

"

1453R wrote:

But this idea that a business has the intrinsic right to refuse employment to women on the sole basis that said women might, one day, become pregnant is sort of disgusting given that women getting pregnant is kiiiiiiiiinda required for the species to continue existing. Disincentivizing pregnancy by forbidding those susceptible to it from obtaining work is kind of an actively terrible idea.

There's two separate issues here, at least the way I see it:
1. What do I think employers should do?
2. What things do we have a right to force employers to do?

As far as the first point goes, I agree with you. I think motherhood is awesome and underrated in modern society, and if I was running a business I'd want to support women who decide to leave the workforce to have children. As such, I personally would be loathe to enact policies that hinder the ability of such people to gain employment prior to childbirth at a generous wage. I'm not saying I'd never implement such policies, because I'd probably listen to my accountant's advice, but I'd almost certainly not go as hard about it as a coldly rational adviser would advise me to do.

But technically, you're not talking about what I'd do; you're talking about employer rights, or lack thereof. And on that score I believe freedom of association requires mutual consent of both parties, and that the reason for withholding consent is irrelevant. So yes, businesses do absolutely have a right, whether it is recognized by law or not, to refuse employment to anyone for any reason, no matter how stupid or bigoted that reason may be. What they don't have is freedom from the natural consequences of that decision, ex: a business that refuses to hire women is artificially limiting its own talent pool and may spur women's advocates to choose to buy competitors' products.

I mean, I would never dream of actually forcing Chick-Fil-A, under penalty of law, to hire a homosexual person. But you won't ever see me eating their food.

Ironic that you bring up Chick-Fil-A, given the decision of my entire family to withhold business from them following that particular episode. They don't get to apologize. They don't get to take it back. I have eaten the last Chick-Fil-A meal I will ever eat, and so have both of my siblings and both of my parents.

Nevertheless. As an amendment, having thought about it some: anyone, male or female, should have the right to negotiate for family/maternity leave as part of their compensation for employment. The role of fathers in modern U.S. society kinda sucks - dads are almost expected to be absentee and have a much harder time winning time away from work to spend with their children. This sucks. Dads love their kids too, and fathers should be as free to take the time they need for their families as mothers are.

Anyways.

Insofar as employers having the intrinsic right to refuse employment to anyone for any reason...again, how does that go when certain folks are biologically 'riskier' than others and thus are rendered physically unable to evenly compete in your ideal meritocratic society? According to your given position, women should be required to render themselves irreversibly sterile in order to be allowed to earn the same level of compensation as male employees of equivalent (actual) qualifications, because 'can get pregnant' is a negative qualification the woman is otherwise unable to strike from her record.

Do you honestly not realize how monstrous that sounds? How harmful it is to say that businesses are perfectly allowed to force women to permanently maim themselves if they want to earn the same compensation for the same work as their male counterparts? - or, conversely, that they're perfectly justified in never offering competitive compensation to women who are not thusly maimed because the risk of pregnancy, however remote, justifies a reduction in compensation?

I'm not even on the receiving end of this particular issue and it thoroughly disgusts me. It's also a very dangerous precedent to set, allowing employers to withhold fair compensation from individuals with performance-nonaffecting biological conditions/factors they cannot control. You mentioned black people being 'on average' 15 IQ points shy of average W/C/M scores; are employers also allowed to refuse employment to black folks because they don't want to deal with 'dumb' people? Are employers allowed to refuse employment to someone in a wheelchair even if the job they're applying and eminently qualified for doesn't require legs? What about people with a family history of heart disease? Should employers be allowed to refuse you fair compensation, or in fact employment altogether, because people you're related to have a higher tendency to suddenly drop dead than others?

I understand that you say these abuses wouldn't happen because employers who do these things would suffer backlash, a'la Chick-Fil-A. Note that Chick-Fil-A is still going strong, however. Telling employers that they're allowed to flip anyone they want the bird finger, tell someone "get out of my office forever, you vile [whatever-ist slur here]" and suffer nothing whatsoever for it that a little PR work won't fix, doesn't strike you as fraught?

Do you honestly believe that bigots should be able to justify their bigotry with some manner of twisty Marketing-minded spiel about how 'aberrant' people hurt their business?

Did chick filet refuse to hire someone based on sexual orientation? Guess I missed that in the news.

Chick-Fil-A Hates Same-Sex Marriage, according to Wikipedia

Short version: Chick-Fil-A's corporate highest-ups are flaming homophobics and went on a fat tear about how much they hate homosexuals. As I recall, some restaurants refused to serve people who they identified as being homosexual. The incident was a significant driver, a while back, both for and against laws people keep trying to pass to allow business to throw people out based on whatever criteria they feel like. I.e. is or is not Chick-Fil-A justified in showing gay people the door?

Whether they're legally justified or not, they get no more of my money. I encourage everyone else to do likewise; businesses that refuse service to someone (often in a scornful or actively vicious manner) based on criteria that business has no business in the first place even knowing about do not deserve to continue doing business.

"

1453R wrote:

I'm not even on the receiving end of this particular issue and it thoroughly disgusts me. It's also a very dangerous precedent to set, allowing employers to withhold fair compensation from individuals with performance-nonaffecting biological conditions/factors they cannot control. You mentioned black people being 'on average' 15 IQ points shy of average W/C/M scores; are employers also allowed to refuse employment to black folks because they don't want to deal with 'dumb' people?

Of course this is currently illegal, but I think they should be allowed to refuse employment for any reason or no reason at all. I also think employers should be allowed to administer IQ tests to applicants directly; this is currently illegal in the US as courts found such testing to be '"racist." As a matter of practical business, administering an IQ test is a much more reliable guage of intelligence than looking at someone's skin color and guessing; therefore, businesses that better investigate whether applicants are or are not intelligent would get better hires than those who are stupidly racist.

"

1453R wrote:

Are employers allowed to refuse employment to someone in a wheelchair even if the job they're applying and eminently qualified for doesn't require legs?

This is currently illegal. I don't think it should be.

"

1453R wrote:

What about people with a family history of heart disease? Should employers be allowed to refuse you fair compensation, or in fact employment altogether, because people you're related to have a higher tendency to suddenly drop dead than others?

This should be allowed.

"

1453R wrote:

I understand that you say these abuses wouldn't happen because employers who do these things would suffer backlash, a'la Chick-Fil-A. Note that Chick-Fil-A is still going strong, however. Telling employers that they're allowed to flip anyone they want the bird finger, tell someone "get out of my office forever, you vile [whatever-ist slur here]" and suffer nothing whatsoever for it that a little PR work won't fix, doesn't strike you as fraught?

No, it doesn't. Why? Because

Look at it this way: if someone is racist or whatever deep in their heart, and the only reason they don't actively behave that way is because they don't want to be caught breaking the law, and they'll always be as bigoted as they can be up until they are noticed crossing that legal line... do we really want to associate with such people? Let them live their own lives away from us. Divide, divide, divide.

I'm not telling you to suffer indignity because some employer expects it. Nor am I expecting the employer to be told how to run his business at gunpoint by police officers. What I'm telling you is: if you don't like someone does business, walk away.

"

1453R wrote:

Chick-Fil-A Hates Same-Sex Marriage, according to Wikipedia

Short version: Chick-Fil-A's corporate highest-ups are flaming homophobics and went on a fat tear about how much they hate homosexuals. As I recall, some restaurants refused to serve people who they identified as being homosexual. The incident was a significant driver, a while back, both for and against laws people keep trying to pass to allow business to throw people out based on whatever criteria they feel like. I.e. is or is not Chick-Fil-A justified in showing gay people the door?

Whether they're legally justified or not, they get no more of my money. I encourage everyone else to do likewise; businesses that refuse service to someone (often in a scornful or actively vicious manner) based on criteria that business has no business in the first place even knowing about do not deserve to continue doing business.

From what I can tell, according to your web link, they have donated money to groups that believe in traditional marriage. Didn't see anything about refusal to hire or serve homosexuals at a chick filet restaurant.

And if you want to boycott them for that, great.

I guess you'd boycott me, cause I give money to the little sister's of the poor To help the elderly.

"

ScrotieMcB wrote:

...
I'm not telling you to suffer indignity because some employer expects it. Nor am I expecting the employer to be told how to run his business at gunpoint by police officers. What I'm telling you is: if you don't like someone does business, walk away.

My issue is that this sort of arrangement gives 100% of the power in these cases to the employer. The prospective employee has absolutely no redress if employers all decide to short-change the individual for such foul and employment-spoiling choices as being born female. You say "well just find an employer who doesn't do those things!"

According to your methodology here, it is perfectly acceptable - expected, even encouraged - for every single employer in the world to be a bunch of racist/sexist/creed-ist shitheads. Because all that Whatever-ist honky means they might be able to squeeze a few more tenths of a percentage point of measurable productivity out of the handful of W/C/M employees they do hire. Why not indulge in Workplace Eugenics if there's absolutely no consequences for doing so? Nobody's allowed to protest, nobody's allowed to file suit, nobody's allowed to boycott your business - the only thing people can do is wish silently in their own homes that they could get work somewhere.

Is that really cool?

"

Khoranth wrote:

From what I can tell, according to your web link, they have donated money to groups that believe in traditional marriage. Didn't see anything about refusal to hire or serve homosexuals at a chick filet restaurant.

And if you want to boycott them for that, great.

I guess you'd boycott me, cause I give money to the little sister's of the poor To help the elderly.

You missed the part where Chick-Fil-A's COO made a bunch of inflammatory remarks over social media about how us non-cis people were 'inviting God's judgment' on the nation. To wit:

"

wikipedia wrote:

In June and July 2012, Chick-fil-A's chief operating officer Dan T. Cathy made several public statements about same-sex marriage, saying that those who "have the audacity to define what marriage is about" were "inviting God's judgment on our nation".

Now, okay. You and Mr. Cathy want to forbid same-sex couples from joining together in religious marriage? All right. You're the religious folks, you can do that.

But then you also have to give up every last single benefit you currently get from the secular government for entering into your religious union. All your tax breaks, all your exemptions, all your special protections and privileges - every last cotton-pickin' one of them goes away, and you're considered absolutely no different whatsoever from anyone else whether you're married via Good Wholesome Christian Values(TM) or not.

Don't like that idea? Feel like the government should help out families and couples, as they've done since before there was a government?

All right. Then same-sex couples are allowed to benefit from all the same provisions, privileges, and protections that traditional Biblical couples get. Either the government recognizes Coupledom or it doesn't. You don't get to say that only some couples get official recognition and privileges, with the decision on which couples get those special privileges left to the whims of a two thousand year old pulp novel and whichever set of robe-wearing cranks has decided they have Special Insight into what said pulp novel means this week.

Everybody gets access to government-sanctioned Coupledom, or nobody does. Pick one.

"

ScrotieMcB wrote:

"

1453R wrote:

I'm not even on the receiving end of this particular issue and it thoroughly disgusts me. It's also a very dangerous precedent to set, allowing employers to withhold fair compensation from individuals with performance-nonaffecting biological conditions/factors they cannot control. You mentioned black people being 'on average' 15 IQ points shy of average W/C/M scores; are employers also allowed to refuse employment to black folks because they don't want to deal with 'dumb' people?

Of course this is currently illegal, but I think they should be allowed to refuse employment for any reason or no reason at all. I also think employers should be allowed to administer IQ tests to applicants directly; this is currently illegal in the US as courts found such testing to be '"racist." As a matter of practical business, administering an IQ test is a much more reliable guage of intelligence than looking at someone's skin color and guessing; therefore, businesses that better investigate whether applicants are or are not intelligent would get better hires than those who are stupidly racist.

IQ tests are too unreliable, biased and generally unfit to be used as a large-scale employer evaluation tool.

"Average 15 IQ points of difference" is an empty argument and should never appear in a civilized debate.

There's a meaningful cutoff point at around 160 IQ points; above this is the genius' realm. Values below this point indicate a realm where hard work and effort can catch up to "high IQ". Valuing humans differently because they have a slight advantage over others in terms of IQ is incredibly stupid.

"

1453R wrote:

Everybody gets access to government-sanctioned Coupledom, or nobody does. Pick one.

Easy: no one. If marriage is a sacrament, separation of church and state means government has no place regulating it.

"

Anonymous1749704 wrote:

There's a meaningful cutoff point at around 160 IQ points; above this is the genius' realm. Values below this point indicate a realm where hard work and effort can catch up to "high IQ". Valuing humans differently because they have a slight advantage over others in terms of IQ is incredibly stupid.

This is simply untrue. IQ is 80% genetic (which is NOT synonymous with "80% racial"). Hard work and effort are not usually effective catchup mechanisms.

"

Anonymous1749704 wrote:

Valuing humans differently because they have a slight advantage over others in terms of IQ is incredibly stupid.

That "slight advantage" is the difference of living in a corrupt African shithole (avg. IQ from 65 - 80) or a civilized and functioning European country (avg. IQ from 90 to 100).

You mention the cutoff of upper 160+ IQ range being a meaningful borderline for geniuses, but forget to mention that there's also a lower cutoff of ~70, at which people start to become dysfunctional and stupidity is medically defined.

Everything else being equal, intelligence is the best indicator off success. It would be incredibly stupid to disregard those "15 IQ points" when employing people.