California passes gender-quota laws

[Hammer Britannia]

*Deep breath in....*

GD was saying that the most qualified person should be in any given position regardless of sex, and that mandating one way or another isn't going to benefit anyone in the long run.

A position that I fully agree with.

Right now, many corporations hire men for positions even when women are more qualified. Quotas are an attempt to force these companies to hire people who are actually qualified, instead of hiring unqualified men.

Are you gonna source this or are you gonna expect us to take your word on something this ridiculous?

[Estanglia]

*Deep breath in....*

GD was saying that the most qualified person should be in any given position regardless of sex, and that mandating one way or another isn't going to benefit anyone in the long run.

A position that I fully agree with.

Right now, many corporations hire men for positions even when women are more qualified.

[Citation needed]

Quotas are an attempt to force these companies to hire people who are actually qualified, instead of hiring unqualified men.

Actually, they're an attempt to get them to hire women. If it was all about the qualifications, then they would mandate that people can only be hired if they have certain qualifications or something like that. Instead, they're forcing businesses to hire women who can be less qualified than the men who could've been hired instead.

[Paddy O Fernature]

Right now, many corporations hire men for positions even when women are more qualified. Quotas are an attempt to force these companies to hire people who are actually qualified, instead of hiring unqualified men.

Are you gonna source this or are you gonna expect us to take your word on something this ridiculous?

^ This.

[New Transeurasia]

*Deep breath in....*

GD was saying that the most qualified person should be in any given position regardless of sex, and that mandating one way or another isn't going to benefit anyone in the long run.

A position that I fully agree with.

Right now, many corporations hire men for positions even when women are more qualified. Quotas are an attempt to force these companies to hire people who are actually qualified, instead of hiring unqualified men.

But what if 2 people apply for a position more suited for a woman, and the more qualified person is a man?

[Chessmistress]

Right now, many corporations hire men for positions even when women are more qualified. Quotas are an attempt to force these companies to hire people who are actually qualified, instead of hiring unqualified men.

This.

I praise the new California law, that's the way.

[Paddy O Fernature]

Right now, many corporations hire men for positions even when women are more qualified. Quotas are an attempt to force these companies to hire people who are actually qualified, instead of hiring unqualified men.

This.

I praise the new California law, that's the way.

....

I rest my case.

[Great Minarchistan]

My statistic was based on the US Census. Your statistic came from a blog post.

...Whose data source is the literal IRS.

And even if we are to use your statistic, over the last decade it showed an average of -0.5% net migration, which isn't a mass exodus by any stretch of the imagination, except, apparently yours.

Losing half percent of your population every year is significant (especially when most countries and regions nowadays see their natural pop growth rate at 1.5ish percent a year), and is equivalent of a mass exodus when compounded over time.

Furthermore, yours focuses on tax filers, and thus does not take the migration of legal immigrants into California into account.

...Which shows how wonderful of an environment California is for taxpayers and for businesses.

To summarize: I have a source, the US Census, that's based on people.

And I [allegedly] don't have a source and the data I used is based on... aliens? Call Alex Jones!

You have a source, a blog, that's based on tax filers and their dependents. And even according to your source, there's still no mass exodus. Ouch!

>No mass exodus
Wew laddie, how is the 1.5-3mln./yr. immigratory inflow to the US considered massive? It's only half to one percent of the overall population

[Great Minarchistan]

And studies have shown that companies with a woman sitting on the board have a correlation towards better overall performance.

Probably because women have an extremely low level of testosterone, a hormone of which is traditionally linked to aggressiveness and risk-taking. Not that you need to hire women to get this effect, low-t men (which are, in entire honesty, not lacking in California) serve the same purpose.
gotta deal with the recurrent lack of stamina from that though

A person serving on the board does not necessarily have a high IQ

Just like a president does not necessarily have to be above 45 y.o., although a good damn amount of them are.

and IQ is not the end-all-be-all of corporate operations, as a certain president well shows.

Note that I emphasized EQ on the equation either, and how it's seemingly positively correlated with IQ. On regards to Trump, his IQ (120ish?) is apparently below average for the presidential average.

[Great Minarchistan]

Annoying as this is, it's hardly a pressing issue. I'd rather Mr. Brown put checks and balances on powerful corporate boards (Silicon Valley, anyone) instead of this posturing. It's really just neoliberalism with a smile.

Is everything neoliberalism now?

[IronJustice]

Is that really what's happening though? Many corporations hire men when women are more qualified?

The real discrepancy between men and women isn't in who is being selected, but who is applying.

It's no secret that men and women value different things when it comes to jobs:

Men tend to chase the money, they will accept a high paying job even at the cost of their happiness and satisfaction. They will apply for a job that they want even if they feel they have a low chance of being selected. Men are more willing to relocate, travel, work nights, work overtime, etc. Men are willing to apply for jobs leaving close coworkers, to go work with people they dislike. Besides money, authority is the main secondary thing many men seek in a job.

Women value their job satisfaction and well being more than pay (assuming they make enough to live). Schedule is a huge factor for women, they want to be with their families. They are more likely turn down a promotion or not apply for a job if it means more travel, working nights, relocating, overtime, etc. Besides schedule, their coworkers and work environment has a huge impact on women, moreso than men. And they are less likely to risk applying for a job they have a low chance of getting.

[Great Minarchistan]

The real discrepancy between men and women isn't in who is being selected, but who is applying.

Rather interesting for you to say that. Being a CEO isn't for everyone: they work 60-65 hrs. a week on average and spend a lot of their time dealing with administrative issues, business meetings and with relationship management. Waking up everyday so to take this task right and avoid the downfall of your company requires a rather great deal of stamina and emotional resistance, that's by turn easily found in testosterone.

[Shofercia]

My statistic was based on the US Census. Your statistic came from a blog post.

...Whose data source is the literal IRS.

Which measures taxes paid, not people. You're using data about taxes, to talk about people. Are you aware that money is not a human being? Sometimes, after reading your posts, I begin to doubt that.

And even if we are to use your statistic, over the last decade it showed an average of -0.5% net migration, which isn't a mass exodus by any stretch of the imagination, except, apparently yours.

Losing half percent of your population every year is significant (especially when most countries and regions nowadays see their natural pop growth rate at 1.5ish percent a year), and is equivalent of a mass exodus when compounded over time.

California's population growth is much higher than California's emigration. Again, you're using financial data to talk about demographics. This is why I'm laughing at you.

Furthermore, yours focuses on tax filers, and thus does not take the migration of legal immigrants into California into account.

...Which shows how wonderful of an environment California is for taxpayers and for businesses.

And if I was arguing that California's tax system rocks, you could use that to counter my point. However, I was making a demographic argument. Not a tax related argument.

To summarize: I have a source, the US Census, that's based on people.

And I [allegedly] don't have a source and the data I used is based on... aliens? Call Alex Jones!

You're using the IRS, an organization that counts money, to count people. I'm using an organization that counts people, to count people. Are you really not seeing this? Have money and human beings merged that much for you?

ou have a source, a blog, that's based on tax filers and their dependents. And even according to your source, there's still no mass exodus. Ouch!

>No mass exodus
Wew laddie, how is the 1.5-3mln./yr. immigratory inflow to the US considered massive? It's only half to one percent of the overall population

It's not considered massive. California's population had double digit growth, as of the last, 2010 census. That's more than one percent a year. Most Californians don't consider legal immigration massive, or a problem. We consider illegal immigrant drug dealing felons a problem. We've never been drug friendly as a state, and you have to be high to think otherwise. Although if you're arguing that people = money, that's also rather high.

[Great Minarchistan]

Which measures taxes paid, not people.

Someone doesn't know that the IRS also measures (surprisingly!) the amount of tax filers on each state.

You're using data about taxes, to talk about people. Are you aware that money is not a human being? Sometimes, after reading your posts, I begin to doubt that.

Sometimes, after reading your posts, I begin to doubt you know how to read. The data is about the number of "income tax filers and their dependents".

California's population growth is much higher than California's emigration.

Is it? Population growth in California has, according to the U.S. Census, averaged 0.7-0.8% a year from 2005 to 2016. Doesn't sound anything near from "much higher" than 0.5pct.

Again, you're using financial data to talk about demographics. This is why I'm laughing at you.

You are either baiting or you're definitely illiterate. Don't take the ridiculous position of attacking me for stuff that I didn't even source.

And if I was arguing that California's tax system rocks, you could use that to counter my point. However, I was making a demographic argument. Not a tax related argument.

And I was primarily reminding of the concept that Californian policies on businesses and people is breeding a massive exodus.

It's not considered massive. California's population had double digit growth, as of the last, 2010 census.

Over a decade, which implies something around sub-percent levels on a yearly basis (which has been proven as per the above).

Remaining of the post consists of either mathematical illiteracy (what is compound growth?) or textual illiteracy. If you want to attack me then at least be good at it, Shof.

[Cannot think of a name]

And I was primarily reminding of the concept that Californian policies on businesses and people is breeding a massive exodus.

This narrative doesn't explain why were losing low income people and trading them out for high income people. People making under $55k are the ones leaving and people making over $200k are the ones replacing them. This would seem to indicate that cost of living is a bigger driving factor than people who can afford to move for tax purposes. source again since the pissing contest skipped over it last time.

[Great Minarchistan]

And I was primarily reminding of the concept that Californian policies on businesses and people is breeding a massive exodus.

This narrative doesn't explain why were losing low income people and trading them out for high income people. People making under $55k are the ones leaving and people making over $200k are the ones replacing them. This would seem to indicate that cost of living is a bigger driving factor than people who can afford to move for tax purposes. source again since the pissing contest skipped over it last time.

Low income people aren't the most subject to the crushing tax system in Cali, so a logical outcome is that Cali is crushing businesses that employ people with lower incomes (as evidenced by the emigration to states like Texas and Washington). You do have a point though, as two of the largest magnets of californians happen to be Nevada and Arizona -- which are bordering California. I'd call for Oregon either, but iirc the housing market is getting actually hot only in Bay Area-ish and SoCal area, so I don't think there's any reason about housing for them to move to Oregon (that borders the northern part of the state).

[Cannot think of a name]

This narrative doesn't explain why were losing low income people and trading them out for high income people. People making under $55k are the ones leaving and people making over $200k are the ones replacing them. This would seem to indicate that cost of living is a bigger driving factor than people who can afford to move for tax purposes. source again since the pissing contest skipped over it last time.

Low income people aren't the most subject to the crushing tax system in Cali, so a logical outcome is that Cali is crushing businesses that employ people with lower incomes (as evidenced by the emigration to states like Texas and Washington). You do have a point though, as two of the largest magnets of californians happen to be Nevada and Arizona -- which are bordering California. I'd call for Oregon either, but iirc the housing market is getting actually hot only in Bay Area-ish and SoCal area, so I don't think there's any reason about housing for them to move to Oregon (that borders the northern part of the state).

You're really trying to jam that square peg into a round hole.

[Proctopeo]

Low income people aren't the most subject to the crushing tax system in Cali, so a logical outcome is that Cali is crushing businesses that employ people with lower incomes (as evidenced by the emigration to states like Texas and Washington). You do have a point though, as two of the largest magnets of californians happen to be Nevada and Arizona -- which are bordering California. I'd call for Oregon either, but iirc the housing market is getting actually hot only in Bay Area-ish and SoCal area, so I don't think there's any reason about housing for them to move to Oregon (that borders the northern part of the state).

You're really trying to jam that square peg into a round hole.

Check your glasses friend

[Great Minarchistan]

Low income people aren't the most subject to the crushing tax system in Cali, so a logical outcome is that Cali is crushing businesses that employ people with lower incomes (as evidenced by the emigration to states like Texas and Washington). You do have a point though, as two of the largest magnets of californians happen to be Nevada and Arizona -- which are bordering California. I'd call for Oregon either, but iirc the housing market is getting actually hot only in Bay Area-ish and SoCal area, so I don't think there's any reason about housing for them to move to Oregon (that borders the northern part of the state).

You're really trying to jam that square peg into a round hole.

If by being a tryhard you mean "bringing relevant concepts into play" then yes I'm being a tryhard.

[Cannot think of a name]

You're really trying to jam that square peg into a round hole.

Check your glasses friend

If you think there's something I missed go for it champ. Otherwise what I see is someone with a conclusion looking for facts. The reason has to be taxes...it can't be the high cost of living from impacted housing that drives lower income people out and high income people in, you have to twist yourself into a pretzel to feed your narrative about taxes. There's more to it than that but that doesn't fit the prepackaged narrative, so you have to make suppositions off the page. But I live here. I know what my rent bill is and my tax bill and that rent bill is a motherfucker and the tax one, meh. Rich people, people effected by the tax burden more, those are the ones coming in. Because they're getting those $200,000 jobs.

No, sorry. Something something taxes. Don't let me interrupt your chanting.

[Proctopeo]

Check your glasses friend

If you think there's something I missed go for it champ. Otherwise what I see is someone with a conclusion looking for facts. The reason has to be taxes...it can't be the high cost of living from impacted housing that drives lower income people out and high income people in, you have to twist yourself into a pretzel to feed your narrative about taxes. There's more to it than that but that doesn't fit the prepackaged narrative, so you have to make suppositions off the page. But I live here. I know what my rent bill is and my tax bill and that rent bill is a motherfucker and the tax one, meh. Rich people, people effected by the tax burden more, those are the ones coming in. Because they're getting those $200,000 jobs.

No, sorry. Something something taxes. Don't let me interrupt your chanting.

In all likelihood, it's a mixture of both factors. Cost of living goes up while businesses that employ lower-income people slowly leave, for reasons including but not limited to taxes.

[Cannot think of a name]

If you think there's something I missed go for it champ. Otherwise what I see is someone with a conclusion looking for facts. The reason has to be taxes...it can't be the high cost of living from impacted housing that drives lower income people out and high income people in, you have to twist yourself into a pretzel to feed your narrative about taxes. There's more to it than that but that doesn't fit the prepackaged narrative, so you have to make suppositions off the page. But I live here. I know what my rent bill is and my tax bill and that rent bill is a motherfucker and the tax one, meh. Rich people, people effected by the tax burden more, those are the ones coming in. Because they're getting those $200,000 jobs.

No, sorry. Something something taxes. Don't let me interrupt your chanting.

In all likelihood, it's a mixture of both factors. Cost of living goes up while businesses that employ lower-income people slowly leave, for reasons including but not limited to taxes.

What businesses would those be? Is In n Out pulling up stakes? There's a Costco and a Wal * Mart right next to each other down the street, are they closing up and I hadn't heard? They just opened up a Target in Magnolia Park, is that their way of saying goodbye? Toyota closed NUMI because it was the only union shop they had, but then Tesla went and reopened it. These low income jobs generally serve a population and don't really 'go' anywhere. We've lost manufacturing in the way everyone has lost manufacturing. If you got some numbers, if you have some examples of companies who only employ lower income workers fucking off out of California for tax reasons, that's great. Lets hear it. Otherwise it just looks like you're stretching to make sure your pre conceived notions still ring true.

[Proctopeo]

In all likelihood, it's a mixture of both factors. Cost of living goes up while businesses that employ lower-income people slowly leave, for reasons including but not limited to taxes.

What businesses would those be? Is In n Out pulling up stakes? There's a Costco and a Wal * Mart right next to each other down the street, are they closing up and I hadn't heard? They just opened up a Target in Magnolia Park, is that their way of saying goodbye? Toyota closed NUMI because it was the only union shop they had, but then Tesla went and reopened it. These low income jobs generally serve a population and don't really 'go' anywhere. We've lost manufacturing in the way everyone has lost manufacturing. If you got some numbers, if you have some examples of companies who only employ lower income workers fucking off out of California for tax reasons, that's great. Lets hear it. Otherwise it just looks like you're stretching to make sure your pre conceived notions still ring true.

Once you stop rambling I might

[Ghost Land]

I'm a big fan of hiring a person based on whether or not a person is qualified for the position.

This is just horrible, ideologically driven idiocy.

These two quotes sum up my views exactly. Are we sure USA Today didn't pick up the story from something they didn't realise was a satire site a la the Onion? This whole thing just reeks of affirmative action where none is desirable or necessary, actually constituting a form of sexism in its own right. I'm sure if they wanted to pass a law saying every company board had to have at least one male, everyone would flip out.

On that note, how are transgender people going to be counted? Is "woman" defined biologically or by gender identification?

[Cannot think of a name]

What businesses would those be? Is In n Out pulling up stakes? There's a Costco and a Wal * Mart right next to each other down the street, are they closing up and I hadn't heard? They just opened up a Target in Magnolia Park, is that their way of saying goodbye? Toyota closed NUMI because it was the only union shop they had, but then Tesla went and reopened it. These low income jobs generally serve a population and don't really 'go' anywhere. We've lost manufacturing in the way everyone has lost manufacturing. If you got some numbers, if you have some examples of companies who only employ lower income workers fucking off out of California for tax reasons, that's great. Lets hear it. Otherwise it just looks like you're stretching to make sure your pre conceived notions still ring true.

Once you stop rambling I might

Nah, it's cool. You just bought your way onto the ignore list. Ain't no one got time for this kind of bullshit.

[Proctopeo]

Once you stop rambling I might

Nah, it's cool. You just bought your way onto the ignore list. Ain't no one got time for this kind of bullshit.

Oh no, not your ignore list. Whatever shall I do?

In all honesty, your incessant, opaque rambling is getting extremely old, and it's a habit you need to get out of. I have legitimate concern; this is not said out of malice.