[groans in HBD]

The Race Relations act looks like a tightening noose, year on year.

https://www.theguardian.com/society/2018/oct/11/new-law-employers-reveal-race-pay-gap-figures

Freedom of association? Freedom of hiring/firing?

Freedom of productivity?

The gender wage gap (while it exists all over the place in varying directions) is a generally false question because it assumes you have more in common with your group demographically (sex) than your occupation – at WORK.

Work is a role, and this would logically lead to demanding the tall poppies be cut short.

You cannot strengthen the weak by weakening the strong. – Boetcker

Do you want a welfare state or not?

We need all the GDP we can get, ya blithering idiots.

https://disenchantedscholar.wordpress.com/2018/04/25/we-are-totally-fucked/

The Bell Curve has already explained different performance in the same roles by IQ (or GPA) and the military has known for about a century.

If you want to crack open the can of worms, have at it.

It’s well known if that book came out today, the evidence would be undeniable (we have MRIs and genetics now).

Should we hand over all positions of power to a group of people purely based on how they were born?

How is that ANYTHING but a privilege?

A protected class is the new aristocracy.

If you want a democracy, a meritocracy, you don’t demand employers release CONFIDENTIAL PRIVACY DATA on other employees. Equality of outcomes is insanity, especially from those plugging diversity!

Ironically, it will become all about performance, and since certain groups

have lower-ranked performance, if you push this, they simply won’t be hired.

This will undo AA hiring. A company cannot afford to pay everyone top performer wages.

Category error – using the top wages as an anchor point, a norm, is statistically false.

If you want a cause, married people earn more than single people for the same work.

It’s known but you won’t see them bring it up because wifey poo likes to spend spend spend.

Singlism is a problem, where equal work is done, because of outdated notions of supporting a family like companies are a miniature welfare state. Bachelor men (including cohab) are screwed by occupational singlism more than women, because their jobs tend to compete with married men. I think that’s why manosphere types haven’t brought it up, because they can’t blame women when it’s intrasexual competition.

All fair competition is fair game under meritocracy though.

Nice girls finish last (earn less)

https://www.aftau.org/news-page-business–management?=&storyid4701=2305&ncs4701=3

It’s to be expected on a level of Duh that forcing women to directly engage in competition with men in the workforce would produce some social changes.

At the very least, modern workers weigh more and age faster (cortisol).

This applies to both sexes. Perhaps women were the fairer sex because the home environment is quieter (cortisol can be triggered by loud noise, although a home can be equally or more busy depending on the industry compared).

The structure rewards masculinity at work. Women need to be. However, even this isn’t enough.

If you’re doing the same work, you should be paid the same. Basic contract law, nothing to do with sex.

Social masculinity is often contextual. As in, plenty of stern women at work soften up in their personal lives. Men compartmentalize too, dating back to the clinical detachment of doctors and surgeons. This is healthy.

I’ve found kindness is frequently punished as we go by an American system (loud, annoying, rude).

There is some evidence for a masculinity wage gap but yes, also a gender/sex-based one.

However, it does varies by industry, like the feminists refuse to accept.

According to the researchers, the same goes for dominant men versus their more conciliatory male counterparts — but even dominant women earn far less than all of their male colleagues, dominant or otherwise.

The Guardian finally turns on Boomers and AC’s immigrant prediction

http://www.theguardian.com/business/2015/sep/14/uk-pension-fund-shortfalls-blocking-pay-rises

As much as one percentage point could continue to be knocked off annual pay rises because firms need to plug holes in the pension pots of retired staff, according to a report.

The blame lies with the retired baby boomer and their employers who failed to ensure enough funds went into their final salary schemes during their working lives. The deficit-ridden schemes must now be filled from company cashflows, denying today’s workers a proportion of the forecast wage rises.

The day that average wages regain their pre-crash peak is now expected in the middle of 2017, but the Resolution Foundation points out that the pensions effect will continue to be felt in pay packets for years to come.

Economists have failed to make the connection between private pension scheme deficits and workers’ current wages, according Jon Van Reenan – an economics professor at the London School of Economics and a leading expert on the labour market.

Brian Bell, an associate professor at Oxford University consulted by the report’s author, said the huge sums involved would deepen the already growing inequality between generations.

Maybe this should not come as a surprise after more than a decade watching those who own assets – mostly the over 55s – ringfence their booty from anyone planning to tax it or allow the market to diminish its value.

….However, the report shows that since the 2008 financial crisis wages have similarly been depressed by pension payments – not because the money has been diverted into workers’ retirement funds so much as it has been used to fill huge black holes left behind by former workers; who can now claim to be among the wealthiest pensioners in the world.

R-types always turn on one another eventually, and they begin on the frail.
It’s a Big Lie that they’re the side who care about the elderly and infirm, that’s why the old rarely vote Left.
#4 article in Business, only 12 comments. A lot of Millennials are reading and thinking.

When the multiculturalism bubble pops

What I predict is this. This immigrant wave will preferentially target the European leftists in ways indigenous Europeans could not and would not do. They will savage the European rabbit class, from rape, to robbery, to murder, with the tacit approval of grassroots European K-strategists, who will not intervene if they are smart and want their nations back on a more permanent basis. In return, European rabbits may push for universal vulnerability, through total universal disarmament and punishments for self defense, but I would expect that to not fly by that time.

No, I think they’ll want to call the K-type army in to protect them, despite calling to disband the whole thing now and for years.

To be clear there will be collateral damage along the way to good K’s but lets face it. We will deserve a lot worse for allowing this to happen. If I ended up burning in along the way, I think I’d have to acknowledge I had it coming. The vast majority of us will escape the punishments we deserve, while I suspect the rabbits will not.

I disagree. We’re too quick to blame ourselves for what others have wrought.

Once European rabbits are sufficiently removed from the equation by the invaders (either fled, humbled, or dead), the invaders may try to attack K-strategists out of necessity.

From experience, neither side are that smart.
It will probably be like the knock-out game where it’s random and based on race.
The r-types might double down, join the other side and especially spy on us normal people.

Then you will gradually see a movement to eject the invaders by force, and they will flee that “persecution” back to their homelands. My guess is humans will hear endless whining about the “Crusaders” for the next 400 years, and as the rabbit population rebuilds they will bemoan the cruelty and lack of consideration inherent to ejecting the invaders.

No they f&(%ing won’t. It’ll be like discussing the Holocaust now. Or fending off coastal invasion by the Nazis.
I wonder what will happen to the mix families.

We may not see the whole thing in our lifetimes, but I expect to live long enough to hear rabbit wails of anguish and horror, and laugh my ass off at them. For now, we are just waiting on the collapse.

Every Guardian reader I knew is being turned off politics.
They don’t even want to hear about it.
Let alone speak of it.
They’re being triggered by the slightest mention of a political topic and getting angry. I haven’t seen them angry before.

It makes me laugh.
I warned them.

evil grin lol smile happy

Tally ho.

Mythbusters: Female CEOs get paid more

http://americasmarkets.usatoday.com/2015/04/30/surprise-women-trump-men-on-ceo-pay/

…The compensation awarded to female CEOs, on average, also outstrips the $14.3 million average paid to all the CEOs of the 100 largest publicly held companies that had reported through early April, according to pay tracker Equilar and compensation consultant Towers Watson….

Wind up a feminist today. With facts!

secretly amused laughing lol rdj saints yeah fuck you

Quota system failing to bridge Norway’s corporate gender gap

It’s almost like men and women are different.
Choice trumps coercion everytime, especially when the women doing the nagging fail to do the very thing they prescribe for others. No one likes a hypocrite.

strop tantrum angry rage beauty elizabeth taylor

Financial Post

While Norway’s election handed power to a coalition led by women, Scandinavia’s richest economy is reserving its top corporate jobs and biggest pay checks for men.

Norway is set to get its first female prime minister in 17 years as Conservative Party leader Erna Solberg, 52, takes over on Oct 18. Her coalition partner, the Progress Party, is led by 44-year-old Siv Jensen. Women also head Norway’s largest labor union and its biggest employers group.

Yet the corporate sphere remains a man’s world. Norway’s historic quota system for supervisory boards — a model that is now being copied elsewhere in Europe — is doing little to push women into executive roles. None of the 25 biggest companies on the Oslo bourse has a female chief executive, and only one has a woman as chief financial officer.

You can’t just say that if you have more women in politics, things are getting better

“You can’t just say that if you have…

View original post 874 more words

Unintended consequences for those who call More STEM!

http://sciencecareers.sciencemag.org/career_magazine/previous_issues/articles/2015_01_14/caredit.a1500014

But as research by Nicola Bianchi, who is finishing his Ph.D. in economics at Stanford University in Palo Alto, California, illustrates, a rapid hike in STEM students may produce results different from what those policymakers expect. For example, when the ranks of STEM majors were expanded, Bianchi found, many of the best students left science for better-paying majors.

But the reforms also had other effects, less anticipated and less desirable. First, “many more people enrolling in these STEM majors all at once made learning more difficult [resulting in] the students acquiring … a lower amount of skills,” Bianchi tells Science Careers in an interview. Why? Resources didn’t expand as much as enrollments did. Also, before the reform, “the professors were used to teaching a very homogeneous type of student;” they now had to teach a more heterogeneous population. Curricula were not adjusted to account for the somewhat different preparation that the technical students brought to their university studies.

Many of the technical school graduates nonetheless managed to complete their degrees—often, though, at lower levels of achievement than the academic school graduates. This appears to have diluted the value of the degree, as shown by the fact that “the new university-educated [technical school] individuals did not earn higher incomes than people from earlier cohorts who were denied access to STEM majors,” Bianchi writes in the paper. What happened? “Economic theory tells us that [when] we increase the supply of STEM-educated workers by a lot, by whole lot, … wages should go down unless the demand for these workers was so high that they were all absorbed, … which I think is unlikely,” he explains in the interview.

Another important consequence: Many of the best academic high school graduates were driven away from the majors affected by the reform and into “other majors, high paying ones, [that] were kind of sheltered by being not accessible to the technical students,” Bianchi says. The academic students “moved to other majors like medicine, which were high paying but without the technical students and therefore [without] the negative impact on learning” created by the expansion.

“The most able students are those that are more flexible in major choice. … They can succeed in different occupations,” Bianchi emphasizes in the interview. “[F]or the US, the evidence suggests that students are already highly elastic [that is, willing to change fields] with respect to economic returns in STEM fields,” he writes in the paper. Research by B. Lindsay Lowell of Georgetown University and co-authors has also found a tendency among top U.S. STEM students to seek other career options in response to changes in the attractiveness of STEM careers.

The Italian reform, Bianchi stresses, had particular features that make it unique; he declines to draw conclusions from it about current policy proposals. Nonetheless, his research strongly suggests that the results of manipulating student populations for policy ends can be more complicated than predicted.

It's a fantasy of social power above sexual power