Randomness thread, part two.

[wufwugy]

So all of the laws that don't counter an initiation of force are immoral? How about stealing?

Stealing is an initiation of force.

Also, laws by government are an initiation of force, but I'm not sure we wanna go there.

Would argue or do argue? Let's be clear and give some examples please of who these people are supporting and what they're actually arguing for?

"Would" because they more or less haven't because they would lose a lot of support. Instead they have done things like slaughter cops, beat whites (and other blacks), and vandalize. Combining this with analysis of their worldview and of the type in history, it is not much of a stretch to say that some would argue that whitey must be shackled to make full reparation for slavery.

[Poopadoop]

My proposal depends on a majority of people not liking racism. But so does your proposal of outlawing it.

Not at all. My proposal of outlawing racist hiring practices doesn't care whether the majority agree with it or not. It's based on morality not popularity, and not economics for that matter.

A super cool thing about economics (and capitalism) is that peoples' beliefs are baked into the spending. Policy based on this yields moral results more efficiently.

You're assuming people are naturally non-racist and I'm assuming the opposite. In fact, people's natural inclination is to be racist until it's explained to them that it's not ok.

But they don't have to hire based on merit in this scenario. They have to hire based on race quota. Merit would correlate well with it, but not as well as otherwise. The US has policy like this and it has been shown to reduce quality and merit, and even though this looks paradoxical on the surface, the policy hurts all races.

They would have to hire based on merit and independent of race. In other words, race would be irrelevant to your choice of who to hire. The problem with current policy is that it amounts to reverse discrimination in many cases because of quota systems and their ilk.

[Poopadoop]

"Would" because they more or less haven't because they would lose a lot of support. Instead they have done things like slaughter cops, beat whites (and other blacks), and vandalize. Combining this with analysis of their worldview and of the type in history, it is not much of a stretch to say that some would argue that whitey must be shackled to make full reparation for slavery.

I don't doubt there's such people out there, what I doubt is that they're being supported either directly or indirectly by Obama or Clinton.

[Poopadoop]

Here's another point: Business generally isn't so cutthroat that you immediately go bankrupt by hiring someone who isn't the ideal candidate based on merit. So without an equal hiring policy, a businessperson could decide it's more important for them to only hire their own kind than to be as rich as they possibly can.

[Savy]

Dispose of all other differences aside from race; they're equally tall, equally attractive, equally friendly, and equally competent at taking orders and giving people their food. The only difference in 'merit' is based on whether the employer thinks they will piss off his racist customers or not.

Customers are a part of your business so obviously it is important, if this group of racists keeping this persons business alive aren't going to give that business their custom as a result and that business can't replace the lost customers then I'd say it's massively important.

By making the wrong choice he is negatively effecting the society around him.

Here's another point: Business generally isn't so cutthroat that you immediately go bankrupt by hiring someone who isn't the ideal candidate based on merit. So without an equal hiring policy, a businessperson could decide it's more important for them to only hire their own kind than to be as rich as they possibly can.

Then set up another business that doesn't do those things and you've got an advantage.

[Poopadoop]

By making the wrong choice he is negatively effecting the society around him.

This is exactly what I'm saying, and why it is better to have an equal hiring policy that ensures fairness rather than relying on the wonders of capitalism to make it happen incidentally, when there's obvious situations in which it wouldn't.

I'm not arguing for 'equal opportunity' policies as they generally exist now, as they tend to amount to reverse discrimination, which I'm against. What I'm saying should happen is the law should not allow you to make a judgment of a person's qualification for a job based in any way on the applicant's race (among other things).

[Poopadoop]

Then set up another business that doesn't do those things and you've got an advantage.

That's not the point, the point is that the economic factors aren't the only motivations employers have. Some might rather pass on another ivory back scratcher than hire 'one of them'. The question then becomes is that something a fair and just society would allow? I would say not.

[Savy]

This is exactly what I'm saying, and why it is better to have an equal hiring policy that ensures fairness rather than relying on the wonders of capitalism to make it happen incidentally, when there's obvious situations in which it wouldn't.

The wrong choice can also be the one you are trying to force them to make.

[wufwugy]

Not at all. My proposal of outlawing racist hiring practices doesn't care whether the majority agree with it or not. It's based on morality not popularity, and not economics for that matter.

It only happens if it has the support of the people.

In fact, people's natural inclination is to be racist until it's explained to them that it's not ok.

My assumptions don't contradict this.

They would have to hire based on merit and independent of race. In other words, race would be irrelevant to your choice of who to hire.

From a regulatory perspective, a company that hires only whites based on merit would not appear different than a company that hires only whites based on faked merit and secret race.

I don't doubt there's such people out there, what I doubt is that they're being supported either directly or indirectly by Obama or Clinton.

BLM is supported by Obama and Clinton.

[Poopadoop]

It only happens if it has the support of the people.

Really? Ever hear about the civil rights movement in the Deep South in the 1960s? Seems it was pretty unpopular with the locals and had to be supported by force if my knowledge of history is correct.

From a regulatory perspective, a company that hires only whites based on merit would not appear different than a company that hires only whites based on faked merit and secret race.

A company can fake compliance if it really wants to, but it's much harder to give the right appearance when all you do is hire one race. That's just lol.

BLM is supported by Obama and Clinton.

There's a difference between showing sympathy for blacks who feel trodden on (rightly or wrongly), and supporting the kind of actions or beliefs you described above. I think there's some nuances here that you're not acknowledging.

[Poopadoop]

The wrong choice can also be the one you are trying to force them to make.

Elaborate please. By 'wrong' do you mean economically or morally? I don't care if the right moral choice is the wrong economic choice. My goal is not to make capitalists richer. My goal is a fair and just society.

[Savy]

Elaborate please.

You created a scenario where the only differing characteristic between two candidates was race in a racist establishment and are trying to say that in that scenario race shouldn't play a factor it 100% should and hiring the desired race is like the only good decision as the options are

1 - race does matter hire "wrong" race bad decision (-1)
2 - race does matter hire "right" race good decision (+1)
3 - race doesn't matter hire "wrong" race irrelevant (0)
4 - race doesn't matter hire "right" race irrelevant (0)

You're saying the outcome should be 50/50 exactly which means you get each outcome equally as often so it cancels out. If you only choose the right race you any possible outcome of the negative side so only get a 0 or + expectation which on average gives a + as opposed to your 0.

There is no moral to it it's a choice. When people start making racist decisions (here it's logical but your scenario isn't realistic) what actually happens is they get punished lose that power they had and the problem starts to correct itself. By forcing people to make -EV decisions who exactly are you benefiting? It doesn't help anyone.

[Savy]

The whole point about racism and sexism and those topics is that they don't matter to the extent that some people think they do (i.e. racists) so to try and argue about racism by constructing scenarios which make race the only important thing is pretty stupid.

See my post about women entering a sexist business that shows how these things tend to get overcome in reality. Being able to pay people less money than others actually helps push through this effect funnily enough and would probably help generate demand that sorts itself out over time.

[Poopadoop]

You created a scenario where the only differing characteristic between two candidates was race in a racist establishment and are trying to say that in that scenario race shouldn't play a factor it 100% should and hiring the desired race is like the only good decision as the options are

1 - race does matter hire "wrong" race bad decision (+1)
2 - race does matter hire "right" race good decision (-1)
3 - race doesn't matter hire "wrong" race irrelevant (0)
4 - race doesn't matter hire "right" race irrelevant (0)

You're saying the outcome should be 50/50 exactly which means you get each outcome equally as often so it cancels out. If you only choose the right race you any possible outcome of the negative side so only get a 0 or + expectation which on average gives a + as opposed to your 0.

I'm confused here sorry. How does hiring the 'wrong' race get you a +1? if by 'wrong' you mean 'morally right, economically wrong' that's silly, because there is no 'right' or 'wrong' race morally.

There is no moral to it it's a choice.

If it's strictly an economic choice, you should hire only the race that your customers approve of. Is that what you mean?

When people start making racist decisions (here it's logical but your scenario isn't realistic) what actually happens is they get punished lose that power they had and the problem starts to correct itself.

How do they get punished? I just explained that they get rewarded because their customers are racist too. And if they don't get punished, the rest of your argument falls down; the problem doesn't correct itself.

By forcing people to make -EV decisions who exactly are you benefiting?

It's not an economic argument about how to make racist restaurants prosper. I think that's where you're missing my point.

[Poopadoop]

The whole point about racism and sexism and those topics is that they don't matter to the extent that some people think they do (i.e. racists) so to try and argue about racism by constructing scenarios which make race the only important thing is pretty stupid.

It's a thought exercise to show why the argument about capitalism incidentally reducing racism is flawed. Yes it is stupid to say there's a business in which race is the only thing that matters. But it's just as stupid to say that the employees' race can't ever influence a business' success in ways that economic models haven't accounted for (or at least not the one Wuf is talking about).

See my post about women entering a sexist business that shows how these things tend to get overcome in reality. Being able to pay people less money than others actually helps push through this effect funnily enough and would probably help generate demand that sorts itself out over time.

How is this relevant at all to the scenario I described? You're not paying people based on race, you're hiring them based on race.

[Savy]

I'm confused here sorry. How does hiring the 'wrong' race get you a +1? if by 'wrong' you mean 'morally right, economically wrong' that's silly, because there is no 'right' or 'wrong' race morally.

I got my - and + mixed up, I edited it but you must have quoted my post before I changed it.

If it's strictly an economic choice, you should hire only the race that your customers approve of. Is that what you mean?

No I'm saying in your exact scenario the choice comes down to race as to who is more qualified for the job.

How do they get punished? I just explained that they get rewarded because their customers are racist too. And if they don't get punished, the rest of your argument falls down; the problem doesn't correct itself.

In your scenario they don't get punished but that's why it's stupid your scenario isn't realistic. I've already explained how they get punished in a previous post in real circumstances.

It's not an economic argument about how to make racist restaurants prosper. I think that's where you're missing my point.

My question stands who exactly are you benefiting and how by forcing that decision on the owner of the business. I've explained why it's bad for that business but you haven't mentioned who benefits.

[Savy]

It's a thought exercise to show why the argument about capitalism incidentally reducing racism is flawed. Yes it is stupid to say there's a business in which race is the only thing that matters. But it's just as stupid to say that the employees' race can't ever influence a business' success in ways that economic models haven't accounted for (or at least not the one Wuf is talking about).

@bold - The point is though it isn't that's just what you want it to be. Race can & on rare occasion does play a factor in who the correct choice for a role is I've never said it can't. I don't think Wuf would say that either but obviously I don't speak for him. What I'm saying is that racist choices are on average very bad for society. The racist pockets of society were clearly much more in the past and I imagine then racist choices were much less bad on average as a result. The more obvious and bad choices you make though the easier it is to exploit that.

How is this relevant at all to the scenario I described? You're not paying people based on race, you're hiring them based on race.

I was trying to branch back to reality not just what you're talking about.

[Poopadoop]

No I'm saying in your exact scenario the choice comes down to race as to who is more qualified for the job.

That's what I said you said lol.

In your scenario they don't get punished but that's why it's stupid your scenario isn't realistic. I've already explained how they get punished in a previous post in real circumstances.

I know they get punished in your scenario, they don't in mine. You can argue that's because my scenario is exaggerated or unrealistic but that doesn't mean the logic of how the economics of it work is flawed.

My question stands who exactly are you benefiting and how by forcing that decision on the owner of the business. I've explained why it's bad for that business but you haven't mentioned who benefits.

You mean apart from the person of the 'wrong' color who gets to have a job? I would say the society as a whole benefits because people tend to be more peaceful, riot less and shoot fewer cops when they live in a just society.

Let's say (and I did) that there's more than one restaurant in this neighborhood. Economic competition (trying to be realistic here). So by making them both hire by the same rules both end up on equal economic ground. Maybe being forced to hire the 'wrong' color hurts them both somewhat but tough shit. Like I said it's not about helping people get rich, it's about having a fair and just society.

[Savy]

It has nothing to do with being rich, the vast majority of business decisions aren't made by rich people they're made by normal everyday people.

It isn't what you said I said because I'm not just talking economically I'm talking definitively it's the best choice.

Giving someone a job who isn't the most qualified for a job is a bad thing as you said yet now you've given it to an individual person that's considered a good thing? Even if that means the net of that society is worse as a result. We have to remember in that scenario the people who are less happy as a group now blame that individual and as a result resent them creating more negative emotions in society. Especially when that person is a very easy victim.

[Poopadoop]

@bold - Race can & on rare occasion does play a factor in who the correct choice for a role is I've never said it can't.

So why are you arguing with me?

What I'm saying is that racist choices are on average very bad for society.

I agree. But there are also people who will take an economic hit for the sake of maintaining their racist views.

The racist pockets of society were clearly much more in the past and I imagine then racist choices were much less bad on average as a result. The more obvious and bad choices you make though the easier it is to exploit that.

Again, this assumes everyone is a rational creature who only makes the best economic choices. No reason to think that's the case.

[Poopadoop]

It has nothing to do with being rich, the vast majority of business decisions aren't made by rich people they're made by normal everyday people.

No, we were talking strictly about hiring policies. Normal everyday people don't decide who a company will hire.

Giving someone a job who isn't the most qualified for a job is a bad thing as you said yet now you've given it to an individual person that's considered a good thing?

If they're only qualification is race, then yes fuck that.

Even if that means the net of that society is worse as a result. We have to remember in that scenario the people who are less happy as a group now blame that individual and as a result resent them creating more negative emotions in society. Especially when that person is a very easy victim.

If a person is resented because they've been treated fairly, then that's better than them being treated unfairly.

[wufwugy]

Really? Ever hear about the civil rights movement in the Deep South in the 1960s? Seems it was pretty unpopular with the locals and had to be supported by force if my knowledge of history is correct.

Desegregation was supported by the people. That's where the federal government got its motivation and legitimacy for stepping in.

A company can fake compliance if it really wants to, but it's much harder to give the right appearance when all you do is hire one race. That's just lol.

By your premise of race being irrelevant regarding hiring decisions, the regulatory entities would be powerless to enforce an abuse since an abuse couldn't reliably be determined to have transpired in the first place.

There's a difference between showing sympathy for blacks who feel trodden on (rightly or wrongly), and supporting the kind of actions or beliefs you described above. I think there's some nuances here that you're not acknowledging.

You are correct, but this does not describe Obama and Clinton. They race bait and give full-throated support to BLM in the midst of and subsequently to BLM black supremacists murdering, assaulting, and vandalizing innocents.

[wufwugy]

My goal is not to make capitalists richer. My goal is a fair and just society.

Note that the primary driver of the growth of fairness and justice that current and recent western generations benefit from is capitalism.

Also we are capitalists.

[wufwugy]

How do they get punished? I just explained that they get rewarded because their customers are racist too. And if they don't get punished, the rest of your argument falls down; the problem doesn't correct itself.

To begin, we have to think in terms of aggregates. The majority of racist employers live in regions where they would lose their livelihoods if they were perceived as running a racist company. By this alone, we would find that the vast majority of them would not act on their racism in hiring, and the small handful of holdouts would go out on their bankrupted shields.

A small minority live in places where there is enough of a niche for racism that they could survive (or perhaps grow business) by being viewed as racist. However, this quantity is much smaller than people think. Regardless, let's imagine a scenario in some backwater where racism sells and a racist company gets more sales than before it was viewed as racist.

In this case, the region would have increased emigration from the negatively affected (both labor and capital) as well as decreased immigration (also both labor and capital). While it would have some immigration favoring the racism, because most people do not favor racism and because many who do would not pay much of a cost to favor it, the net would be emigration. Our racist company would lose some because of this but let's assume that it gains by net due to even bigger sales increase from the local racist customers than its increased costs from the capital/labor flight. However, the racist patrons of the company would lose out since most of them would be more negatively affected by the capital/labor flight. The region would experience a reduction in both aggregate demand and aggregate supply (big recession coming), and as long as it kept on its racist path, it would become a shitpot. Then our grandchildren, decades from now, would be talking about how the last ardent racists died in a shitpot that nobody outside that shitpot cared about.

On the macro, humans do not tolerate blatant racism. Because of this, on the macro, racism doesn't sell, and on the macro, what doesn't sell doesn't survive. That is, at least when you have free market capitalism.

Maybe being forced to hire the 'wrong' color hurts them both somewhat but tough shit.

Growth happens on the margins. One regulation that adds one small "tough shit" to the economy negatively affects those on the relevant margins. This type of thing manifests in big ways because of large quantities and snowballing effects. For example, universities being "forced to hire the 'wrong' color" is associated with a statistically significant increase in blacks being misplaced in educational institutions and flunking out of schools above their level instead of being top of class at less rigorous schools. It is reasonable to think that this one tiny "tough shit" policy has turned what would have otherwise been very prosperous lives on average into much less ones.

I agree. But there are also people who will take an economic hit for the sake of maintaining their racist views.

This does more to eradicate racism than forcing the person to hire people he doesn't want to. Allowing those people to enact their racist policy punishes their racist behavior (and rewards the non-racist). Forcing them to not enact a racist policy does not punish their racist behavior (and doesn't reward the non-racist).

[Poopadoop]

By your premise of race being irrelevant regarding hiring decisions, the regulatory entities would be powerless to enforce an abuse since an abuse couldn't reliably be determined to have transpired in the first place.

No, it would relatively easy to show that a company was using racist hiring practices. You simply note how they hired candidate A who has no education or experience at all in making widgets but is the same race as all their other employees, vs. candidate B who has a degree and 10 years experience in making widgets but is a different race.

You are correct, but this does not describe Obama and Clinton. They race bait and give full-throated support to BLM in the midst of and subsequently to BLM black supremacists murdering, assaulting, and vandalizing innocents.

I'm sure they do Wuf.... I'm sure they openly endorse murder by BLM and this isn't just your rampant partisanship showing.

[Poopadoop]

To begin, we have to think in terms of aggregates. The majority of racist employers live in regions where they would lose their livelihoods if they were perceived as running a racist company. By this alone, we would find that the vast majority of them would not act on their racism in hiring, and the small handful of holdouts would go out on their bankrupted shields.

A small minority live in places where there is enough of a niche for racism that they could survive (or perhaps grow business) by being viewed as racist. However, this quantity is much smaller than people think. Regardless, let's imagine a scenario in some backwater where racism sells and a racist company gets more sales than before it was viewed as racist.

In this case, the region would have increased emigration from the negatively affected (both labor and capital) as well as decreased immigration (also both labor and capital). While it would have some immigration favoring the racism, because most people do not favor racism and because many who do would not pay much of a cost to favor it, the net would be emigration. Our racist company would lose some because of this but let's assume that it gains by net due to even bigger sales increase from the local racist customers than its increased costs from the capital/labor flight. However, the racist patrons of the company would lose out since most of them would be more negatively affected by the capital/labor flight. The region would experience a reduction in both aggregate demand and aggregate supply (big recession coming), and as long as it kept on its racist path, it would become a shitpot. Then our grandchildren, decades from now, would be talking about how the last ardent racists died in a shitpot that nobody outside that shitpot cared about.

That all works out fine if only what you say next were unequivocally true.

On the macro, humans do not tolerate blatant racism.

Racism doesn't have to blatant. And not only is racism tolerated, it's accepted and tacitly encouraged in pretty much every country in the world in some form or another.

For example, universities being "forced to hire the 'wrong' color" is associated with a statistically significant increase in blacks being misplaced in educational institutions and flunking out of schools above their level instead of being top of class at less rigorous schools. It is reasonable to think that this one tiny "tough shit" policy has turned what would have otherwise been very prosperous lives on average into much less ones.

You are referring to reverse discrimination here, not a meritocracy which is my argued policy.

This does more to eradicate racism than forcing the person to hire people he doesn't want to. Allowing those people to enact their racist policy punishes their racist behavior (and rewards the non-racist). Forcing them to not enact a racist policy does not punish their racist behavior (and doesn't reward the non-racist).

I wouldn't dispute that they would get punished by the market for being openly, blatantly racist, for example by having a sign in their shop window that says 'we don't hire ****'. But there's also some subtlety they can employ that allows them to be racist without giving the appearance of being so. Hiring a 'token' person or persons of the 'wrong' color would be one example.

[OngBonga]

My goal is not to make capitalists richer. My goal is a fair and just society.

There is no such thing. Define "fair and just" in this context. What you consider fair, I might consider unfair. For example, money. Let's say my Dad has worked hard all his life, very hard, and died leaving me a fortune. Let's say you have worked hard and are well off. Let's say wuf is skint and living off handouts from the government. Get a fucking job.

So where's the fairness here? What system do you propose that makes it fair? When you come to take money off me that my Dad earned, how is that fair? My Dad would disagree with you that it's fair, and I would too because fuck off, it's my money.

When you go giving that money to wuf, well he's not going to say "that's not fair", he'll go "thank you very much".

"Fair and just" is subjective. You'll never be able to please everyone.

[Poopadoop]

"Fair and just" is subjective. You'll never be able to please everyone.

In the present context of job hiring, fair and just means a meritocracy. In terms of hiring people, no-one would argue a priori that it's fair and just to hire someone even partly based on their skin color. I say 'a priori' because some would argue it's fair to try to redress previous inequalities by reversing the inequality (making whites the slaves and blacks the plantation owners to use the extreme example). But I'm not one of those people. Fairness isn't about paying for the sins of your forefathers. It's about making things right, right now.

You can argue whether it's fair and just to have income disparity, or to have taxes that redistribute wealth, or whether lazy bones people should be left to starve, and those are interesting ethical questions, but not the specific ethical question I was adressing. And certainly I take your point that having a consensus on these issues is much less likely as they are confounded with things like effort, family inheritance and the like.

[wufwugy]

No, it would relatively easy to show that a company was using racist hiring practices. You simply note how they hired candidate A who has no education or experience at all in making widgets but is the same race as all their other employees, vs. candidate B who has a degree and 10 years experience in making widgets but is a different race.

"These guys interviewed well. These guys didn't. Prove me wrong."

Can't do it. This is why there are quotas. Regulators can't enforce your parameters. Furthermore, employers could get away with explicitly claiming to hire only a race because it's better for business. In a meritocracy, that's merit. "Sorry, guv. I got some real racist employees, and whenever they're around a jigaboo they get all uppity and ain't no ways productive."

I'm sure they do Wuf.... I'm sure they openly endorse murder by BLM and this isn't just your rampant partisanship showing.

I didn't say "openly endorse murder," and I don't assume to know what they believe*. What I do know, however, is what they have done, which is respond to BLM assault, murder, and vandalism with support for BLM's agenda and blaming BLM's adversaries. Consistent with their statements, BLM aggression has increased. They know that BLM is violent and the know that BLM is headed up by criminals, and they give their support.

That all works out fine if only what you say next were unequivocally true.

This does not help your argument because it too depends on my statement being true.

You are referring to reverse discrimination here, not a meritocracy which is my argued policy.

I used your exact words. I know you're trying to describe a meritocracy, but the way in which you've done it is not a meritocracy.

*I have said things that contradict the claim that I don't assume to know what they believe. I do assume to know what they believe, but I won't defend that when debating something because in order to not lose that I'd have to be psychic.

[wufwugy]

There is no such thing. Define "fair and just" in this context. What you consider fair, I might consider unfair. For example, money. Let's say my Dad has worked hard all his life, very hard, and died leaving me a fortune. Let's say you have worked hard and are well off. Let's say wuf is skint and living off handouts from the government. Get a fucking job.

So where's the fairness here? What system do you propose that makes it fair? When you come to take money off me that my Dad earned, how is that fair? My Dad would disagree with you that it's fair, and I would too because fuck off, it's my money.

When you go giving that money to wuf, well he's not going to say "that's not fair", he'll go "thank you very much".

"Fair and just" is subjective. You'll never be able to please everyone.

I'm not necessarily arguing with you, just want to point out that "fair and just" doesn't depend on pleasing everyone. A good parent treats his children fairly and the kids feel awful about it all the time.

I believe that civilization is capable of a much more fair system than what we have now. You would be right if you assumed I'm talking about getting as close as we can to individual freedom as possible.

[Poopadoop]

"These guys interviewed well. These guys didn't. Prove me wrong."

You can make a reasonable case that someone is lying when all of one race interviews well whereas all more qualified candidates of another race don't. You can even do the math and say 'this would happen by chance alone only 1/1000 times, so don't try to shovel us that shit.'

Furthermore, employers could get away with explicitly claiming to hire only a race because it's better for business. In a meritocracy, that's merit. "Sorry, guv. I got some real racist employees, and whenever they're around a jigaboo they get all uppity and ain't no ways productive."

No they can't do that. It would mean they're hiring on merit based on race rather than on merit as entirely independent of race, which is how I'm defining it.

This does not help your argument because it too depends on my statement being true.

Which statement? That people don't tolerate blatant racism? Where did I say that had to be true in order to install a meritocracy? In fact, I've said just the opposite: It doesn't matter if everyone likes it or not, it doesn't matter if it costs some people money, we're doing it kids, "tough shit".

I used your exact words. I know you're trying to describe a meritocracy, but the way in which you've done it is not a meritocracy.

You've used some of my words ("tough shit") and associated them with the policy of reverse discrimination, which I've repeatedly said I'm against. And since you claim to understand what I mean by a meritocracy, it's difficult to understand why you would think an argument about the perils of reverse discrimination somehow weakened my position when I've repeatedly made it clear that this isn't what I'm for.

[OngBonga]

I'm not necessarily arguing with you, just want to point out that "fair and just" doesn't depend on pleasing everyone. A good parent treats his children fairly and the kids feel awful about it all the time.

Yeah fair enough, I say "please everyone" in the sense of "treat everyone fairly". It can't happen.

In the present context of job hiring, fair and just means a meritocracy.

If I have two applicants for a job, both of apparent equal merit, nothing obvious to separate them, how do I treat them both fairly? Toss a coin? I'm not doing that. I'm hiring the one that I like the most. That could be down to something as superficial as the female one because she's got nice legs, or the black one because he's funny, or rejecting the one dude because I didn't like his stupid hair style.

The idea that we earn our place in scoiety based on merit assumes that merit is a qantifiable value, which it isn't. What is merit? Qualification? Experience? Both? Most people who apply for a given job will consider themselves to be qualified for the post, otherwise they wouldn't bother to apply. So most applicants have "merit". How do you determine who has more than another? By interviewing them, where you can meet them personally and decide if they are suitable. Personal bias will naturally come into play at this point. One can overlook experience shortcomings if the applicant is confident in himself. One can overlook lack of academic qualifications if the applicant has lots of experience.

"Merit" is not something that is dished out fairly.

[Poopadoop]

I'm not talking about what people do irl, I'm talking about how it would work in a meritocracy. If you're hiring people for purely superficial reasons then you're a wanker and would be in trouble in my system.

Point is you have to be accountable for your decisions. You can't just say 'i hired the girl with the big tits because I decided that gives her more merit than the ugly girl' or ' i hired the white guy cause i didn't like the black guy's haircut', or 'i hired my brother cause he needs a job'. You have to lay out the qualifications for the job ahead of time, judge the applicants based only on these qualifications and their suitability, and be prepared to justify your decision as being based on merit rather than your own whims. This is pretty much how it works in the UK in fact, except for the bullshit quota-filling that goes on. Pretty sure companies can be fined for hiring a less-qualified person if the not-hired person decides to pursue it.

In fact, if you had two equally suitable candidates that could not be distinguished by any other means, and who interviewed equally well, the fairest thing to do would be to flip a coin. I don't see anything wrong with that; it's certainly better than judging their 'merits' on some irrelevant personal preference you the hiring person has.

If you ever do apply for a job you might learn more about how it actually works.

[Savy]

Are you mad? Those irrelevant personal preferences play an absolutely huge roll in getting a job.

[Poopadoop]

Are you mad? Those irrelevant personal preferences play an absolutely huge roll in getting a job.

Getting there. I guess you're having trouble distinguishing what I'm saying should be the case from what actually is the case. If you try really hard, though, you should be able to separate them.

[Poopadoop]

Those irrelevant personal preferences play an absolutely huge roll in getting a job.

Actually, how do you know this is true? Have you ever hired anyone? Or is that just how you assume it works?

[Poopadoop]

Think this is pretty clear:

https://www.gov.uk/employer-preventi...crimination-is

Are you saying these laws are ignored or not enforced? 'Cause where I work at least the lawyers are pretty scared about getting in shit over this. Never mind the fines, it's a PR disaster for a company to have someone sue them over their hiring policies.

I'm not saying personal preferences don't impact hiring at times. People are only human. What I'm saying is they can't (legally) make a hiring decision where a personal preference overrides merit.

see also: https://www.gov.uk/employer-preventi...on/recruitment

[Poopadoop]

'Cause where I work at least the lawyers are pretty scared about getting in shit over this. Never mind the fines, it's a PR disaster for a company to have someone sue them over their hiring policies.]

Let me elaborate on this as it might give you an idea of how seriously these laws are taken. When I get a grant that includes funding to hire someone (say a research assistant), I can't just go up to some eye candy in my class and offer her the job. The uni requires that I give the details to Human Resources (HR), state what the qualifications are (and I'm not allowed to include big tits as a qualification btw) and HR drafts an ad that goes out. I then have to sort through the applications and choose a number of suitable shortlisted candidates (usually 4-5) for interviewing. HR keeps a record of these choices.

All of the people invited for interviews are suitable for the post (often some more than others, but there's nothing to say I can't hire a less suitable candidate on paper because the more qualified applicant interviews poorly). But, there are rules for the interview process. I have to find two of my colleagues to interview with me. One has to be a different sex than me, so that at least one woman and one man are on the interview panel. One has to have had college training on interviewing and hiring people (if I haven't myself). One has to be a senior person (full professor) if I'm not myself. Only then am I allowed to go ahead with the interviews.

Ahead of the interviews, I have to meet with the panel and go over the questions we're going to ask. The panel has to agree these are suitable questions. For example, at the interviews we aren't allowed to ask certain questions (like in the second link i posted above), about age, disability, whatever.

Once we finish the interviews I have to consult with the panel over who to offer the job to. I can certainly have a personal preference (call them candidate X with a nice haircut), but if they're clearly less qualified than someone else (candidate Y who's voice gets on my nerves), and the other interviewers favored Y, I can't just tell the other interviewers to fuck off cause I'm hiring X for the above reasons. If I tried, not only would they look at me like I'm a tosser (which I would be) and refuse to ratify my choice, but one of them could decide to report me to HR who would give me a stern lecture about fair hiring and probably make me take some two-day course on equal opportunities (not fun). So there are a lot of internal checks on how people get hired.

I don't know this for a fact, but I'd be very surprised if my uni did things substantially differently in any other hiring situation. That includes hiring the people who clean the toilets. They are definitely not pissing around when it comes to following the laws.

Now, I'm not saying every company takes hiring that seriously, and obviously a smaller company isn't going to have the resources to implement all those internal processes, but I'm pretty sure any company with more than 10 employees is going to have at least one person there to say what you can and can't do when you hire someone.

So saying 'personal preferences play a huge role' just doesn't gibe with my own experience. Maybe it does in other hiring situations, but certainly not in the ones I've been involved in.

[oskar]

Whenever my fathers neighbor catches me I have to taste her Schnapps. She's in her 70's, has 8 children and lives like you would have an arbitrary time ago. She's always raising or harvesting something or making booze. The trick to raising ducklings is to keep them really warm. If you ever see a basket full of ducklings in an open stove at an old ladies home, that's why. Anyway so she tells me she doesn't think taking all those foreigners in is going to solve any problems. Someone should just man up and fix the middle east. She says every other year she has a drake that's bothering all the other ducks and biting the sheep, and then you just have to... and she makes a chopping motion with her hand. And I have to try that old 50 proof. She can't sell it because the restaurants say it makes the guests drunk too fast and they don't order enough.

Besides my grandmother she's the only person I know who makes these correctly: http://cookingweekends.blogspot.co.a...n-apricot.html
This is all good except for the sugar cube and spices. That's for fags. It's not a dessert.

[pokerchampion]

Hey everyone. I am new in this and I found great poker website. It is **********************/#u66I5N
You sign up for free and get $50 sign up bonus. Also, you can have your own coach if you want to. Check it out, it is great *************************/#u66I5N

[Savy]

Getting there. I guess you're having trouble distinguishing what I'm saying should be the case from what actually is the case. If you try really hard, though, you should be able to separate them.

You said this is mostly how it works in the UK I'm saying it isn't. Don't start being pedantic.

Actually, how do you know this is true? Have you ever hired anyone? Or is that just how you assume it works?

Go spend some time looking up stats like how being taller means you're more likely to earn more money. It's how life works you treat people with favourable characteristics better than you do those without. A job interview is no different, obviously these aren't the vital role in someone getting a job but they all play their part. The way you look, dress and act all plays a part in how likely you are to land a job.

[pokerchampion]

Hello everyone! Do you want to get a bonus sign up for free? If yes check this out ******************/#u66I5N
It is a poker website where you join for free and get $50 bonus. You can also choose to have your own personal coach. Check it out it is great

[Poopadoop]

Go spend some time looking up stats like how being taller means you're more likely to earn more money. It's how life works you treat people with favourable characteristics better than you do those without.

You're correct.

A job interview is no different, obviously these aren't the vital role in someone getting a job but they all play their part. The way you look, dress and act all plays a part in how likely you are to land a job.

Of course they do. If you look like a meth addict there's a reasonable chance you won't make a good employee. If you don't bother to look decent for an interview, it suggests you don't give a shit about getting the job, and if you do get it, you won't give a shit about how you perform. If you act like a social retard in the job interview, it suggests you won't be able to work effectively with your colleagues.

All of these things are part of the reason why you have interviews. All of them pertain to a person's merit. Certainly there is a subjective quality to evaluating them, but there's also a general consensus on what makes a person interview well and what doesn't. The meth addict who shows up in a t-shirt and ripped jeans and examines his cold sores during the interview probably isn't going to be a good worker regardless of how he shapes up on paper.

If you say well all other things being equal, the taller, better-looking person gets the job, then ya I don't dispute that. It's just not the first thing you're meant to look for in a candidate.

[Poopadoop]

Those irrelevant personal preferences play an absolutely huge roll in getting a job.

But this is going too far. In my humble opinion that is.

In fact, I'm not convinced the correlations between earnings and things like height are likely to be very large at all. If your sample is huge as I assume happens in these studies you'll find all sorts of significant correlations that make a great sound bite but turn out to be rather insignificant in terms of effect size.

[OngBonga]

If you ever do apply for a job you might learn more about how it actually works.

See you finish with this to raise a little giggle and to assert your authority on the matter, but you're wrong. You're talking about how it should be in a meritocracy, and I'm saying such a system is impossible to achieve. It is not possible to treat everyone fairly based on merit because merit is subjective, and not a number which can be compared to another. I'm not employing someone purely because she has nice legs, I'm employing her because she's suitably qualified, and my favourite of the applicants thanks to her lovely legs. That's how it actually works. Most people who are hiring will compile a shortlist of those who, on paper, are suitable for the job, and then choose the one he feels is most likely to fit in. That's where superficial reasons come into play, and I think you're being naive if you feel this is uncommon.

[Savy]

If you want to look at the effect something has why would you compare ridiculous extremes?

The reality is the people apply for a job tend to be fairly similar. The people applying for that head of sales role at a small company aren't going to range from meth addict to GOAT employee the chances are they are all somewhat similar and vastly so in comparison. So then if you are left with two people and out of a rating of 100 candidate A would be a 70 and candidate B would be a 73 other skills such as how tall you are, how well you dress, etc all would affect that choice.

[Poopadoop]

What you don't hear on the news: There's an effect of height but it's neither large nor linear. In other words, you don't just make more and more money the taller you get. Wages peak at about 6cm above average height for men (p. 14) and at about average height for women (p. 15).

http://repec.iza.org/dp2394.pdf

Compare this to the effect of IQ. Pretty much a straight line.

https://pumpkinperson.com/2014/11/09...e-correlation/

Unless someone wants to dispute the idea that IQ is overall a better indicator of merit than height when it comes to jobs, I'd say merit comes out ahead of appearance.

[Savy]

What you don't hear on the news: There's an effect of height but it's neither large nor linear. In other words, you don't just make more and more money the taller you get. Wages peak at about 6cm above average height for men (p. 14) and at about average height for women (p. 15).

http://repec.iza.org/dp2394.pdf

Compare this to the effect of IQ. Pretty much a straight line.

https://pumpkinperson.com/2014/11/09...e-correlation/

Unless someone wants to dispute the idea that IQ is overall a better indicator of merit than height when it comes to jobs, I'd say merit comes out ahead of appearance.

What is your point here? It doesn't go against what is being said at all. I'm saying physical attributes effect your chances of things in life. A high IQ is an incredibly genetic feature too.

It has actually been shown that at extremes a very high IQ can be a hindrance in jobs so you should go and look that up if you care about it.

[Poopadoop]

See you finish with this to raise a little giggle and to assert your authority on the matter, but you're wrong. You're talking about how it should be in a meritocracy, and I'm saying such a system is impossible to achieve. It is not possible to treat everyone fairly based on merit because merit is subjective, and not a number which can be compared to another. I'm not employing someone purely because she has nice legs, I'm employing her because she's suitably qualified, and my favourite of the applicants thanks to her lovely legs. That's how it actually works. Most people who are hiring will compile a shortlist of those who, on paper, are suitable for the job, and then choose the one he feels is most likely to fit in. That's where superficial reasons come into play, and I think you're being naive if you feel this is uncommon.

I never said it was possible to achieve did I? But does that mean it's not something we should strive towards?

Also, I think you're overplaying the importance of personal feelings. Sure you want the secretary with nice legs if she can do the job as good as the other one. But not everyone thinks like you - another guy might think 'jesus my wife is going to meet her and what will i tell her then?' Another might feel guilty for hiring the legs. I might think 'my colleagues are going to think i'm a wanker if i hire her.' So there's reasons not to hire that person as well, all other things being equal. It doesn't all just go one way.

[OngBonga]

Unless someone wants to dispute the idea that IQ is overall a better indicator of merit than height when it comes to jobs, I'd say merit comes out ahead of appearance.

How about two people with equal IQ but different height? The person closer to the peak height is going to come out on top, on average. Where you have two people of equal merit, this is where bias comes into play.

[OngBonga]

I never said it was possible to achieve did I? But does that mean it's not something we should strive towards?

Strive towards something that cannot be achieved because fairness is subjective? Nah, I can't be bothered to chase rainbows.

[OngBonga]

But not everyone thinks like you - another guy might think 'jesus my wife is going to meet her and what will i tell her then?'

This is still bias. I was just throwing examples, but that bias can be not hiring the woman with nice legs out of fear of what the wife thinks. How is that fair?

[OngBonga]

That bias exists already in the name of "equality", ie hiring individuals based on ethnicity to ensure a set target % of minorities employed by the company.

[Poopadoop]

If you want to look at the effect something has why would you compare ridiculous extremes?

It's exaggerating to make a point. There's signals to a person's merit in how they prepare for and comport themselves at a job interview. You're not just interviewing them to see which one you like the most on a personal level after talking to them for 15 minutes (or at least I'm not). You want to get an idea of how keen they are, whether what they said in their application is true (' So you're expert in such-and-such? Tell me about it...'), whether they know how to behave in a social setting, etc.

[OngBonga]

That bias exists already in the name of "equality", ie hiring individuals based on ethnicity to ensure a set target % of minorities employed by the company.

This actually perfectly illustrates why it's impossible to maintain fairness in society. One way or another, someone will say your policy is unfair, and they'll be right, because it's always unfair on someone.

[Poopadoop]

What is your point here?

My point is that your argument that personal preferences and irrelevant features of a job applicant play a 'huge' role is wrong. They play some role, but not much.

[Poopadoop]

How about two people with equal IQ but different height? The person closer to the peak height is going to come out on top, on average. Where you have two people of equal merit, this is where bias comes into play.

I agree.

[Savy]

It's exaggerating to make a point.

But it doesn't make a point it does the exact opposite of that.

As you're not really adding anything I'll leave it here.

[Poopadoop]

This is still bias. I was just throwing examples, but that bias can be not hiring the woman with nice legs out of fear of what the wife thinks. How is that fair?

It's not.

[Poopadoop]

That bias exists already in the name of "equality", ie hiring individuals based on ethnicity to ensure a set target % of minorities employed by the company.

hahaha you're trolling me right? Maybe it's a different word here, but it's reverse discrimination or positive hiring or whatever the fuck you call it, and all along i've been saying it's bullshit.

[OngBonga]

I agree.

Well perhaps we disagree on how common it is for a hiring party to be faced with many applicants of equal merit.

Where there is a clear difference in merit, of course the stronger candidate will, and should, prevail. But I feel this is the rarer situation. I think more often than not, employers are faced with decisions that are more difficult than they would hope.

[OngBonga]

hahaha you're trolling me right? Maybe it's a different word here, but it's reverse discrimination or positive hiring or whatever the fuck you call it, and all along i've been saying it's bullshit.

Ok but it only serves to show that the "fairness" that you're striving for is impossible to acheive. That's the point I'm trying to make, that fairness is a matter of opinion, it's not a number. How does one create a truly fair policy?

[Poopadoop]

This actually perfectly illustrates why it's impossible to maintain fairness in society. One way or another, someone will say your policy is unfair, and they'll be right, because it's always unfair on someone.

Correct. But, that doesn't mean your fairness policies can't be guided by reason and common sense. To use another ridiculously exaggerated example that ImSavy will point out is ridiculously exaggerated, but which I'll do anyways to make the point:

Your country has a disability policy that says you can't hire someone based solely on them having two working legs. Another country has no such policy. Which is more fair? We can all agree I think that the first is more fair. Next, you think about color. Add a clause saying you can't discriminate based on race. Does this make your policy more fair or less fair? Again, it's not debatable is it?.

Of course, there are things that are going to be debatable and you can't please everyone or satisfy everyone's definition of fair. But you can do things that are objectively fair just based on common sense and work on the grey areas using compromise. This is pretty much how the law progresses in any civilized country isn't it? You start by outlawing the obvious things like torture and murder and then work on the more subtle areas.

[OngBonga]

Your country has a disability policy that says you can't hire someone based solely on them having two working legs. Another country has no such policy. Which is more fair? We can all agree I think that the first is more fair.

But I can argue that the first policy is unfair. Let's say I apply for a job, and myself and a dude in a wheelchair, of equal merit, are the last two applicants considered. Where that disability policy exists, dude in chair is way more likely to get the job than I am, because the company will be afraid of being accused of discrimination. Where the policy doesn't exist, I'm more likely to get the job because I can walk and I'm obviously capable of more tasks, and there's things like my ability to get the fuck out quickly, and helps others to do so, if there's a fire. The first policy is unfair on the company because it puts undue pressure on them to employ disabled people. It's unfair on able bodied people because they're at a disadvantage when of otherwise equal merit. It's also unfair because the disabled person will be entitled to more generous benefits than the able bodied person, meaning the able bodied person actually needs the job more.

There's no way to agree on what's fair and what's not. Someone always comes up short.

[Poopadoop]

Ok but it only serves to show that the "fairness" that you're striving for is impossible to acheive. That's the point I'm trying to make, that fairness is a matter of opinion, it's not a number. How does one create a truly fair policy?

It's a bullshit policy because it reverses the discrimination. That doesn't mean it isn't being done in the spirit of fairness, or that I don't empathise with what it's trying to accomplish. I just think the logic behind it is fucked up.

[Poopadoop]

Where there is a clear difference in merit, of course the stronger candidate will, and should, prevail. But I feel this is the rarer situation. I think more often than not, employers are faced with decisions that are more difficult than they would hope.

My own somewhat limited experience has been that one candidate almost always stands out as superior based on their application. The interviews are generally a formality. If they don't come in drunk and/or swearing and/or can't answer simple questions about their CV, they pretty much have the job.

[Poopadoop]

But I can argue that the first policy is unfair. Let's say I apply for a job, and myself and a dude in a wheelchair, of equal merit, are the last two applicants considered. Where that disability policy exists, dude in chair is way more likely to get the job than I am, because the company will be afraid of being accused of discrimination. Where the policy doesn't exist, I'm more likely to get the job because I can walk and I'm obviously capable of more tasks, and there's things like my ability to get the fuck out quickly, and helps others to do so, if there's a fire. The first policy is unfair on the company because it puts undue pressure on them to employ disabled people. It's unfair on able bodied people because they're at a disadvantage when of otherwise equal merit. It's also unfair because the disabled person will be entitled to more generous benefits than the able bodied person, meaning the able bodied person actually needs the job more.

There's no way to agree on what's fair and what's not. Someone always comes up short.

I think you misunderstand the law. No company is required to hire someone because they're in a wheelchair and another equally-qualified applicant isn't, and the wheelchair person could only sue them if they showed the other person was less qualified than they are (I think, don't take me to court on that). The company may hire the wheelchair person anyways cause they think it's good PR, and you're right that isn't fair. But it's hard to see how to get around that using the law. We can make them flip a coin in cases like that, but it's going to appear flippant (haha) even though it's objectively the fair thing to do.

[OngBonga]

I've only ever conducted one interview. I was a projectionist at the local cinema, my best friend was head projectionist, and we practically ran the place, along with Sophie, the manager. We needed a new projectionist, and Sophie left me and Alex to conduct the interviews. Alex had dealt with a couple, and we had a candidate named Mike. Both myself and Alex conducted the interview, and we got along really well. We hired him that night. What swung it for him? He liked to smoke weed.

[Poopadoop]

I've only ever conducted one interview. I was a projectionist at the local cinema, my best friend was head projectionist, and we practically ran the place, along with Sophie, the manager. We needed a new projectionist, and Sophie left me and Alex to conduct the interviews. Alex had dealt with a couple, and we had a candidate named Mike. Both myself and Alex conducted the interview, and we got along really well. We hired him that night. What swung it for him? He liked to smoke weed.

Fucking anarchist.

But seriously, had some other applicant cared enough about that projectionist job to call you out on that, you could have ended up bankrupting the company.

But really seriously this time: Almost certainly issues of fair practice get a lot more attention in businesses with large numbers of employees since they naturally have more interviews taking place and there's a greater chance of someone getting all litigious on their asses.

[OngBonga]

Mike ended up becoming my lodger and friend for a while. He liked his poker, too. That was another thing that went well in the interview for him.

[OngBonga]

How many people go to an interview and talk about weed and poker, and get the fucking job?

I know a thing or two about fairness.

[OngBonga]

But seriously, had some other applicant cared enough about that projectionist job to call you out on that, you could have ended up bankrupting the company.

Not really. None of the applicants were experienced, so the merit was purely subjective on our part. Having a degree in sociology isn't of value to us, so it's purely about who we feel we can work with. That would be someone who isn't going to go into meltdown when we spark up a spliff at the end of the night.

[Poopadoop]

How many people go to an interview and talk about weed and poker, and get the fucking job?

I know a thing or two about fairness.

I wonder how many job interviews Mike had before he met you guys..."So... Mike... it says here your hobbies are weed and poker, is that correct?" Mike: "Ya mate, you got any weed on ya? Pretty dry around here lately."

[Poopadoop]

That would be someone who isn't going to go into meltdown when we spark up a spliff at the end of the night.

I can totally see that holding up in front of the labor board, ya. Good point.

[OngBonga]

I think it was reggae that got us talking about weed. Something like "so... you like music... what kind of stuff?" ... "burning spear" ... "oh really, me too."