California passes gender-quota laws

[Mystic Warriors]

I get really tired of people using Liberalism likes a problem. And trying to fix inequality is not a bad thing.

Trying to fix inequality - awesome! Coming up with an idiotic law that makes those trying to fix inequality look like welfare queens - very bad.

Keep telling yourself that. Liberals are the vast majority here. Deal with it.

Actually, neither political block can win without NPP voters. Let's look at the statistics:

https://elections.cdn.sos.ca.gov/ror/15 ... county.pdf

Total Voters: 25,119,238
Unregisterd Voters: 6,095,821
Registered Voters: 19,023,417

Democrats: 8,438,268 (44.4%)
No Party Preference: 4,852,817 (25.5%)
Republicans: 4,769,299 (25.1%)
American Independents: 504,325 (2.3%)
Libertarians: 141,701 (0.7%)
Greens: 90,404 (0.5%)
Peace and Freedom: 74,282 (0.4%)
Other: 152,321 (0.8%) (and a good chunk here are reformists)

So no, leftist parties do not have the majority. The problem is that NPP voters don't vote as often as partisan voters. Hopefully these stunts will change that. But leftist parties don't even have 46% of the vote.

.....Nice try. But NPP people can lean left. You dont need to register as a left wing party to be left wing. Nice try though.

[Mystic Warriors]

This is quite irrelevant, I presume, since most of America's important companies are based in Delaware. Apple etc. are unaffected.

I also don't understand the requirements. I was thinking the quota would be a percentage of the board total, not in actual numbers. If a board is relatively small, does it have to add members and create token spots just to invite women in? A few publicly traded companies, especially small corporates trading on alternative markets (AIM in the UK, BATS/IEX/Chicago Exchange in US), only have two board level members. Under this prerequisite, such a company would be forced to replace both members with women.

That comes to another question - do they have to replace employees to make way for women? So men are going to be fired to make way for a quota filler?

Or are special spots going to have to be created with no practical portfolio, to allow a quota filler to enter the board? Like the company founder's son/daughter getting a token place on the board and a wage for doing nothing?

All in all, I like this. It furthers the theory of the War On Men.

The voting gap between men and women is already the largest it has ever been on record, and Trump would have won by over 400 electoral college votes if only men voted, and would have won every state if only White men voted, which is who this law is basically targeting. So anything that agitates this group is quite nice. Especially if it targets white liberal men. Bankrupt them. Stop them from funding liberal movements. Use their own rules against them, for the luls.

Apple is based in California and there is no "war on men".

[Shofercia]

Which measures taxes paid, not people.

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

Amazingly enough, not all people file taxes, or are dependents of those who file taxes. I know it's news for you, but unemployed American citizens are also human beings.

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".

So you just confirmed that US citizens, who have been unemployed for over a year, and aren't a dependent, are not a human being in your book. Gotcha.

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.

Between 2000 and 2009, there was a natural increase of 3,090,016 (5,058,440 births minus 2,179,958 deaths). During this time period, international migration produced a net increase of 1,816,633 people while domestic migration produced a net decrease of 1,509,708, resulting in a net in-migration of 306,925 people.

https://web.archive.org/web/20100609221 ... 009-04.csv

3.1 mil vs 1.5 mil. One number there sounds much higher to me.

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.

Does the IRS not produce mostly financial data? I thought they were the Internal Revenue Service. Are you talking about a different IRS?

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.

In your opinion, coming from a World where those who aren't tax filers or their dependents, aren't counted as human beings.

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.

If California's population has double digit growth over a decade, that usually means that yearly growth was, on average, above 1%. Let's say that you have 100,000 people dollars. Your revenue grows by 11% over a decade. You end up with $111,000 in revenue. Now let's say that it grows one percent a year, on average, that means that after ten years, you get: $110,462. Hmm, I wonder, which of those amounts is the larger one?

[Shofercia]

Trying to fix inequality - awesome! Coming up with an idiotic law that makes those trying to fix inequality look like welfare queens - very bad.




Actually, neither political block can win without NPP voters. Let's look at the statistics:

https://elections.cdn.sos.ca.gov/ror/15 ... county.pdf

Total Voters: 25,119,238
Unregisterd Voters: 6,095,821
Registered Voters: 19,023,417

Democrats: 8,438,268 (44.4%)
No Party Preference: 4,852,817 (25.5%)
Republicans: 4,769,299 (25.1%)
American Independents: 504,325 (2.3%)
Libertarians: 141,701 (0.7%)
Greens: 90,404 (0.5%)
Peace and Freedom: 74,282 (0.4%)
Other: 152,321 (0.8%) (and a good chunk here are reformists)

So no, leftist parties do not have the majority. The problem is that NPP voters don't vote as often as partisan voters. Hopefully these stunts will change that. But leftist parties don't even have 46% of the vote.

.....Nice try. But NPP people can lean left. You dont need to register as a left wing party to be left wing. Nice try though.

Of course NPP can lean left. And NPP can lean right. The poster I was responding to was making it sound like Conservatives can't win in California. If so, how'd John Cox win the primaries?

[Serrus]

I might be the personification of the "Fanatic Egalitarian" Stellaris thing, but...
What the frequently asked questions, California?

[Cannot think of a name]

.....Nice try. But NPP people can lean left. You dont need to register as a left wing party to be left wing. Nice try though.

Of course NPP can lean left. And NPP can lean right. The poster I was responding to was making it sound like Conservatives can't win in California. If so, how'd John Cox win the primaries?

Well, a little bit of that is Newsom running the primaries like it was the general against his Democratic opponent so he could run easier against Cox, something I only just now have been assuming is going as planned. Which, now that I checked, yes. Yes it is. But your general point stands, we have elected Republican governors. The one before our current one was, who unseated a democratic governor mid-term who had taken over from a two term Republican. It happens. Not with the shit that's being offered up now, but it does happen.

[The Caleshan Valkyrie]

And studies have shown that companies with a woman sitting on the board have a correlation towards better overall performance. A person serving on the board does not necessarily have a high IQ, and IQ is not the end-all-be-all of corporate operations, as a certain president well shows.

Link to those studies?

Did y’all find any to dispute those claimed in the article?

[The Batorys]

Keep dreaming.

I never tire of hearing about our impending doom.

Right? I've been hearing about it for close to twenty years now. Maybe more.

[The Batorys]

The Californian government is leftist. This does not necessarily apply to the disenfranchised populance.

In fact, the whole two-party system is a scam. It’s basically “the tail shaking the dog”, tricking people to believe there is an actual democracy in America.

There is none. The Rothschild/Zionist elites have already taken over the country decades ago.

... OK. Ignoring the baiting (I've been through enough rabbit holes and am staring into an abyssal insomnia), who are the members of this "disenfranchised populace", why are they "disenfranchised", and why would they lean... conservative? let's try that... if the franchise is given back to them?

They don't exist. They're in his imagination.

[The Batorys]

Nothing says feminism like desperately coercing and pressuring women to enter jobs and occupations they don't like.

There is a HUGE difference between trying to be equal and trying to be like men. Feminists, instead of embracing and owning their femininity, discarded it, and adopted masculinity in a misguided attempt to prove that "women can do anything men can do."

They can keep pretending to themselves that sleeping with many guys is "liberating" and entering highly stressful and demanding jobs "empowering". The all around misery and depression and unfulfillment women face is evidence to the contrary.

Wow.

[The Batorys]

Texas is an economic powerhouse, which has consistently excelled California on growth.

Let's see, we have DOW, Oil, Natural Gas, Dell, Pizza Hut, JCPenny, H-E-B, GameStop, Motel 6, Phillips 66, Whataburger.

What does Cali have? Kim Kardashian? Google? Smashburger? Apple?

Dell isn't anything to be proud of.

You know we have oil and natural gas, too? As I recall, our Standard Oil (Chevron), bought yours (Texaco). But unlike Texas, we have an economy that's more diversified than Saudi Arabia's.

We also have pizza, burgers, and clothes that don't suck.

Gamestop? Who cares? What is this, 2002?

We have Pixar. SpaceX. Tesla Motors.

Hollywood. Lucasfilm. Disney. Universal Pictures.

More people work in renewable energy just in California than are employed by the USA's entire coal industry.

And finally, we have legal weed. So fuck Texas.

[The Batorys]

Commiefornia is a disgrace.
Expand the border wall up along the Cali border. Encourage them to secede, and let them when they decide they want to. Let them be their own independent country and then let the Chinese annex them. They're already crushing pretty hard on commies, why not let them in?

If California seceded, the USA's economy would drop from 1st in the world to 4th.

Also commiefornia thinks you're the disgrace.

[The Batorys]

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

Be respectful to your elders. Noob.

[The Batorys]

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.

You realize he can't see your post, right?

Do you know how ignore lists work?

[Mystic Warriors]

.....Nice try. But NPP people can lean left. You dont need to register as a left wing party to be left wing. Nice try though.

Of course NPP can lean left. And NPP can lean right. The poster I was responding to was making it sound like Conservatives can't win in California. If so, how'd John Cox win the primaries?

I was referring to the idea that just because left wing parties have under 50% that means liberals are a minority. We are not. Conservatives on a national level can't win, George HW Bush in 1988 was the last Republican to carry this state and will forever be the last. The GOP can't carry this state.

There are millions of Republicans and a fractured Democratic vote would say why he got the nod. He has a better chance of striking gold in his nose then winning though.

[Uxupox]

Of course NPP can lean left. And NPP can lean right. The poster I was responding to was making it sound like Conservatives can't win in California. If so, how'd John Cox win the primaries?

I was referring to the idea that just because left wing parties have under 50% that means liberals are a minority. We are not. Conservatives on a national level can't win, George HW Bush in 1988 was the last Republican to carry this state and will forever be the last. The GOP can't carry this state.

There are millions of Republicans and a fractured Democratic vote would say why he got the nod. He has a better chance of striking gold in his nose then winning though.

that's the same thing that was said about Pennsylvania.

nobody knows what the future has to offer. they might flip in the future or hell might go full on eco-fascist.

[Mystic Warriors]

Let's see, we have DOW, Oil, Natural Gas, Dell, Pizza Hut, JCPenny, H-E-B, GameStop, Motel 6, Phillips 66, Whataburger.

What does Cali have? Kim Kardashian? Google? Smashburger? Apple?

Dell isn't anything to be proud of.

You know we have oil and natural gas, too? As I recall, our Standard Oil (Chevron), bought yours (Texaco). But unlike Texas, we have an economy that's more diversified than Saudi Arabia's.

We also have pizza, burgers, and clothes that don't suck.

Gamestop? Who cares? What is this, 2002?

We have Pixar. SpaceX. Tesla Motors.

Hollywood. Lucasfilm. Disney. Universal Pictures.

More people work in renewable energy just in California than are employed by the USA's entire coal industry.

And finally, we have legal weed. So fuck Texas.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_C ... _companies

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U ... ies_by_GDP


yeah, California > Texas. Economically Cali is the strongest state in the union. PERIOD.

[Mystic Warriors]

I was referring to the idea that just because left wing parties have under 50% that means liberals are a minority. We are not. Conservatives on a national level can't win, George HW Bush in 1988 was the last Republican to carry this state and will forever be the last. The GOP can't carry this state.

There are millions of Republicans and a fractured Democratic vote would say why he got the nod. He has a better chance of striking gold in his nose then winning though.

that's the same thing that was said about Pennsylvania.

nobody knows what the future has to offer. they might flip in the future or hell might go full on eco-fascist.

Pennsylvania is not as liberal as Cali. Eco Fascist is far more likely.

[Uxupox]

that's the same thing that was said about Pennsylvania.

nobody knows what the future has to offer. they might flip in the future or hell might go full on eco-fascist.

Pennsylvania is not as liberal as Cali. Eco Fascist is far more likely.

"likely" is not definite term.

[Germanic Templars]

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.

You know, I want to believe that, but at the same time, it is California. A state that shows too much sun and too much people (and heat for that matter) make you do stupid stuff, like wanting laws like this.

[Tom Joad]

This is quite irrelevant, I presume, since most of America's important companies are based in Delaware. Apple etc. are unaffected.

I also don't understand the requirements. I was thinking the quota would be a percentage of the board total, not in actual numbers. If a board is relatively small, does it have to add members and create token spots just to invite women in? A few publicly traded companies, especially small corporates trading on alternative markets (AIM in the UK, BATS/IEX/Chicago Exchange in US), only have two board level members. Under this prerequisite, such a company would be forced to replace both members with women.

That comes to another question - do they have to replace employees to make way for women? So men are going to be fired to make way for a quota filler?

SEC. 2. Section 301.3 is added to the Corporations Code, to read:
301.3. (a) No later than the close of the 2019 calendar year, a publicly held domestic or foreign corporation whose principal executive offices, according to the corporation’s SEC 10-K form, are located in California shall have a minimum of one female director on its board. A corporation may increase the number of directors on its board to comply with this section.
(b) No later than the close of the 2021 calendar year, a publicly held domestic or foreign corporation whose principal executive offices, according to the corporation’s SEC 10-K form, are located in California shall comply with the following:
(1) If its number of directors is six or more, the corporation shall have a minimum of three female directors.
(2) If its number of directors is five, the corporation shall have a minimum of two female directors.
(3) If its number of directors is four or fewer, the corporation shall have a minimum of one female director.

I believe this answers the points you've raised except for the decision as to why it's a whole number rather than a percentage, presumably for simplicity though.

Seeing as how boards are allowed to create an additional space to comply and in those instances where no women are present they'll need to hire them, it would seem sensible to actually get some benefit from the hire aside from avoiding the financial penalty for non-compliance. Of course that won't stop some candidates being hired simply because they're women, not because they're right for the job or have the right experience, but purely a box ticking exercise.

As to whether these would be pointless roles is a toss up, it'll happen of course but you can't mandate people doing their jobs well, although that happens in other ways.

I don't disagree that a lack of diversity is a problem, that lack manifests in many forms so I tend to avoid focusing on specific categories such as gender, so this does nothing to address socio-economic imbalances at the board level but I don't think a law mandating numbers on a board will achieve that and this law could well end up being removed or weakened to the point of advisory following the inevitable law suit.

I don't intend to read any replies because I know I'll forget but I wanted to throw in my thoughts after skimming the beginning of the actual text of the bill which is here https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/face ... 20180SB826

[Olerand]

A percentage quota would have been better, one woman, then two is hardly anything. Anyway, nice to see California join much of the rest of the civilized world.

I also wasn't aware that this was a (or the) State's prerogative in America, but oh well.

[Ors Might]

A percentage quota would have been better, one woman, then two is hardly anything. Anyway, nice to see California join much of the rest of the civilized world.

I also wasn't aware that this was a (or the) State's prerogative in America, but oh well.

The civilized world has quotas for vag? I’m not sure how to feel about that. Or even what jokes I can make considering our commander-in-chief.

[South Acren]

Welp, this country has fallen to a new level of shit. Time to finish the bomb shelter.

[Olerand]

A percentage quota would have been better, one woman, then two is hardly anything. Anyway, nice to see California join much of the rest of the civilized world.

I also wasn't aware that this was a (or the) State's prerogative in America, but oh well.

The civilized world has quotas for vag? I’m not sure how to feel about that. Or even what jokes I can make considering our commander-in-chief.

As my post said, yes, much of it does. France, Germany, Scandinavia, and I believe the United Kingdom even.

Welp, this country has fallen to a new level of shit. Time to finish the bomb shelter.

Americans are so melodramatic. Getting so worked up over some law that other countries passed in the mid-2000s.