HAHAHAHA, what a stupid law. That women needs to get her head out of her and make someone a sandwich.
HAHAHAHA, what a stupid law. That women needs to get her head out of her and make someone a sandwich.
I would like to add to this by linking david wong from Cracked's verry well thought out article:
5 ways modern men are trained to hate woman
you should all read the entire thing, it's an eye opener
Why, because I disagree with you? If economics were as simple as you say it is, then why are there several different schools of thought and practice on it? Besides, as I already said, what I posted was theoretical (but again that went over both your heads... or you chose to ignore it). And with all due respect, you and Timoleon are not experts at either economics or reading comprehension, so stop being "matter-of-fact" with your own theories of economics. I was being civil with you, and him, until typical Mudpit stupidity and sanctimonious "expert analysis" kicked in.
Last edited by Seether; March 15, 2014 at 10:23 AM.
Member of the Imperial House of Hader - Under the Benevolent Patronage of y2day
A Wolf Among Sheep: A Rise of Three Kingdoms AAR
Not because you disagree with us, but because you are quite obviously in the wrong here. Productivity is something well defined. And optimisation is not done on a binary scale of job done - job not done.
Basic economics are as simple as I make it out to be. Economics are immensely complex, which is why you will find different schools on economics. Nevertheless, the basics are widely agreed upon by everyone (and this is basic economics). However, the fact that you argue this sort of reveals the fact that you are not that well versed with economics, because your belief is widely held by people who have not studied it (i.e. that all economics are debatable).
Uh, you're the one arguing on a theoretical level? I pretty much all out admitted in my post that I was arguing theory, but then qualified it why the effect would still exist even though not to the absurd degree I painted up in the model.
Do you deny that most implies that things are of an order of magnitude? Do you deny that get the job done implies a binary outcome? Do you deny having said these things? I do not claim to be an expert on reading comprehension, but here your argument did do a head turn on itself.
You cannot really dismiss my statement as theories. When you have not really even built an argument for why there would be a gender-pay-gap. Secondly, if you want to disown the theory, please illustrate where the reasoning is flawed, (mind you we are playing theories here, so US EO law is not even half an argument here). I wish you good luck, because the only assumption made here really is that people are looking to maximize their wealth and do so in a rational manner.
Member of the Imperial House of Hader - Under the Benevolent Patronage of y2day
A Wolf Among Sheep: A Rise of Three Kingdoms AAR
You can't just judge a business on productivity alone. I don't know about your place, but if you start studying management, an important part of the curriculum is: Corporate social responsibility.
A business can't just maximize it's wealth, and look purely at numbres and productivity it has certain obligation towards society as well.
Otherwise there wouldn't be a legally set minimum wage
Or automatic wage raise as soon as certain commodities become more expensive (Belgium has the index system, when certain common goods become more expensive to buy, the index rises, this means that all wages in all sectors automatically rise with the index to ensure people keep their "purchase power", landlords are allowed to index the rent as well, meaning rents are allowed to rise with the index)
or quota and recommendations regarding employees of the other gender, other races or with disabilities.
or government stepping in and forcing energy companies to freeze their prices when too many people can't afford to pay them
etc...
This whole machinelike train of thought with pure numbres and ratio completely forgets that humans are, well humans, with certain rights and not programmable machines.
Profit is important obviously, but society and the general populace are far more important! And social responsibility should always outweigh profit.
Isn't the whole point that women and men are equal in all germane ways but women are paid less? If so then it is logical to assume that an organization can save a lot of money by employing only women without any downsides. The issue of productivity is moot. If the males were more productive than females, it means that the females replacing them must be as productive. It is not as if males are inherently more productive because that would make the first statement false, and justify wage disparity. If a company can't find as productive female workers than the company must do a cost benefit analysis to determine what it values most, the difference in productivity or the difference in wages.
So ?It s just words,if somone doesn t like they can ignore it.
I ve never been told by a woman that I am sexist,if I say she s looking hot.She either giggles and thanks me,or ignore me and moves on.
But yeah I guess,it s also about mentality,here in Romania men are still men and women are still women,not like in Western Europe/USA where men are tending to become metrosexuals and women are starting to behave like dykes.
If you stick most infront of productive then yes. Productivity cannot have multiple meanings, in the sense that it always references efficiency.
CSR is an interesting subject. Hate to break it to you though, it's a marketing scheme. People do CSR because they have made the estimation that it will appeal to the end-users (i.e. consumers) and that they can increase their profits by increasing their revenue more than their costs by engaging in CSR.
Not CSR, legal compliance.
Special interest lobby groups. (Don't get me wrong, I believe diversity is a source of competitive advantage, but that does not mean that it has to be legislated.)
Legal compliance.
As I said, it's a marketing tool. To make use of an analogy from the popular Goldman Sachs Elevator gossip twitter feed. "No one would run a marathon if they had to sign a non-disclosure agreement." It's the same with CSR mostly, no one would do it if they couldn't market the fact that they are acting responsibly. So the peg does indeed fit, it's just that you did not see the way the peg was supposed to be put in. Don't get me wrong, I think it's great that the CONSUMERS take take their responsibility and change the way to make profit for companies, but corporate social responsibility as such is a bit of a hoax, corporations just react to consumer preferences. Sure there are probably some genuinely nice corporations, the same way people surely run marathons for their own benefit, but on the balance...
Last edited by Hekko; March 15, 2014 at 12:00 PM.
ORLY?Originally Posted by Seether
Productive:
So saying "most productive," in reference to an individual, cannot mean they achieve a lot; it can only be in reference to their efficiency? Okay...adjective \prə-ˈdək-tiv, prō-\
: doing or achieving a lot : working hard and getting good results
: producing or able to produce something especially in large amounts
: causing or resulting in something
So, being that you are entirely wrong about the term "productive," and in conjunction with what you said about "productivity," you just proved my original point for me. I spoke theoretically about productive individuals and a corporation's productivity, but you want to attack me on the basis that I am "obviously wrong" and that I "do not understand." Funny how the tables got turned. How's that crow taste?
Member of the Imperial House of Hader - Under the Benevolent Patronage of y2day
A Wolf Among Sheep: A Rise of Three Kingdoms AAR
"When I die, I want to die peacefully in my sleep, like Fidel Castro, not screaming in terror, like his victims."
My shameful truth.
Member of the Imperial House of Hader - Under the Benevolent Patronage of y2day
A Wolf Among Sheep: A Rise of Three Kingdoms AAR
The saddest part about this isn't really how dumb of a law it is, and it is a dumb law as it covers nothing that defamation and harassment laws don't or couldn't cover with some minor adjustments, but that this is a result of the far too common phenomenon of emo politics.
Lawmakers don't have a vision or project for the justice system anymore. No, they wait for a scandal the media gets all in a tiff about, then make some half assed statements that basically boil down to the Belgian version "Won't someone think of the children" though it's less children and more middle class kneejerk socio-conservative liberals (I had to made up that word because I can't think of one that describes people who change political affiliations to whatever gives them the opportunity for most drama).
And then two years later they finally realize those halfassed statements were actually taken serious and now they're stuck with idiot, laws. And worst of all, the very people that demanded these laws in the first place, will now attack the lawmakers for having made retarded laws that outlaws some of their idiot behaviour.
Hate to rain down excrement on your parade. But if you put most to productive it becomes a relative thing, wherein you compare productivities. Hell, even if I completely capitulate here (which I don't because it's blatantly obvious you used it in a relative way), you still are in a peculiar situation because you then profess ignorance of opportunity costs in your statement about 50% etc. which once again returns us to you not really understanding the slightest bit about micro-economics.
Anyway, this discussion is fairly pointless, because it's slid into discussing fairly meaningless semantics (because you suddenly felt an urge to change your position) rather than you actually addressing the actual economic mechanisms at hand. I suggest you do that in order for this discussion to be meaningful.
sexims is not a real thing.At least not in my country.We don t view things like that...It s just an excuse for women to whine about how discriminated they are until they get some big fat cheks.
WAKE UP,sexim,racism,modern slavery is almolst gone in the euro-american zone.
3 world places like India/Africa/Asia are the places where these things truly happen,why don t the freaking ADL and other organisations don t focalise on those regions ?
It s because people there aren t dumb enough to accept these excuses of a law and will not submit to such requests.
And why not make ALL slurs and negative comments illegal? Why don t we freaking ban every negative comment of everyone on every topic ?
Then everything bad would simply dissapear no?Cmon stop with this nonsence