California passes gender-quota laws

[Great Minarchistan]

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?

A decadent silicon valley :behehe:

[LimaUniformNovemberAlpha]

The customers; male and female combined; if they at all wanted this, didn't want it badly enough to make it good PR to do so. Perhaps they prefer testosterone-driven businesspeople as much as they prefer estrogen-driven teachers? Who is the government to tell them they're wrong?

[Northeast American Federation]

The customers; male and female combined; if they at all wanted this, didn't want it badly enough to make it good PR to do so. Perhaps they prefer testosterone-driven businesspeople as much as they prefer estrogen-driven teachers? Who is the government to tell them they're wrong?

That just means all those people are sexist, not that the California government did anything wrong. At least, that's probably the reasoning of the hyper-progressives that thought this was a brilliant idea.

[Great Minarchistan]

The customers; male and female combined; if they at all wanted this, didn't want it badly enough to make it good PR to do so. Perhaps they prefer testosterone-driven businesspeople as much as they prefer estrogen-driven teachers? Who is the government to tell them they're wrong?

That's interesting for you to say, since the job pattern assumed by men and women is completely different and has stark differences from whatever could be called as "equal".

[Hammer Britannia]

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?

A decadent silicon valley :behehe:

Can't wait till it's flooded by "Muh Global Warming"

[Great Minarchistan]

A decadent silicon valley :behehe:

Can't wait till it's flooded by "Muh Global Warming"

an earthquake will catch it up first.

[Shofercia]

Our population is growing. In spite of that, we still have a positive net migration rate.

Calling BS on that claim.

My statistic was based on the US Census. Your statistic came from a blog post. 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. Furthermore, yours focuses on tax filers, and thus does not take the migration of legal immigrants into California into account. If someone was to be a legal immigrant, going the student visa route, they would not be filing taxes, as their income would probably be below minimum wage.

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

[Shofercia]

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?

https://www.zippia.com/advice/biggest-c ... alifornia/

Silver Lake
Wells Fargo
Deutsche Telekom
The Walt Disney Company
Oracle
Gap
Kaiser Permanente
Apple
SYNNEX
Intel

Here at Zippia we have developed a database of over 250,000 companies that spans the entire country. For this report, we looked at the companies headquartered in California with at least 100 employees. That left us with 3,000 companies...

[Auzkhia]

I understand why such policy was created, but having more female CEOs won't liberate anyone, it's just integrating more people into the system. This is peak liberalism, thinking that having women at the top will automatically mean better conditions for all women. Top down reforms are ineffective. People like to call California "commie" but no communist is in power in California, it's just liberals, which are capitalists and reformists.

Liberal and cultural feminists: We need more women CEOs!
Marxist feminists: Capitalism hurts women. How about no CEOs?

In short, I think this doesn't help.

[Cannot think of a name]

Calling BS on that claim.

My statistic was based on the US Census. Your statistic came from a blog post. 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. Furthermore, yours focuses on tax filers, and thus does not take the migration of legal immigrants into California into account. If someone was to be a legal immigrant, going the student visa route, they would not be filing taxes, as their income would probably be below minimum wage.

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

The San Diego Tribune used that graph recently (Feb) to talk about it. There was an interesting bit of context that is California's real problem that doesn't really fit in with the dick waving about whose moving where.

People making $55,000 or less a year were mostly moving out of California between 2007 and 2016, the report found, while people making more than $200,000 a year moved in.

California is gentrifying as a state. This in turn is exasperating the cost of housing which is in turn driving out lower income residents thus feeding the cycle. But since those $200k folk can afford it, they only care in so much. We lose our poor and lower education folks and we cease to be able to grow or in fact function. Those rich fuckers need someone to serve the food and clean their hotels etc.

Our problems are a tad more complex than a dick measuring contest with Texas.

[Trumptonium1]

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?

https://www.zippia.com/advice/biggest-c ... alifornia/

Silver Lake
Wells Fargo
Deutsche Telekom
The Walt Disney Company
Oracle
Gap
Kaiser Permanente
Apple
SYNNEX
Intel

Here at Zippia we have developed a database of over 250,000 companies that spans the entire country. For this report, we looked at the companies headquartered in California with at least 100 employees. That left us with 3,000 companies...

Wells Fargo is most definitely not in California, they just have their HQ in the Bay area. They're mostly based in NYC and that's where they have most employees.

The others on your list like Apple Intel and Oracle are really from Delaware for tax purposes. (Oracle America in this context - their US operations. Oracle Corporation itself is based in Delaware as well.)

Hence this legislation doesn't affect any of them.

In terms of corporate regulation, Delaware is by far the largest threat. Although lack of regulation is what Delaware made its name for, so that's unlikely to change. I'm unsure who this legislation affects. Maybe California passed it precisely because it affects close to nobody and there's more lefty altruist moral points to win than dollars to lose.

[Proctopeo]

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/2018/09/30/california-law-sets-gender-quotas-corporate-boardrooms/1482883002/

California’s finally hit that next level of liberalism, government interference in business to ensure equality. Now, this is obviously a major win for the SJW lobby, not so much for anyone already on those boards. Beyond the normal criticism of “sexism!”, which I think someone else can handle much better than me, I think this sets a dangerous precedent. Seriously Jerry Brown, what were you thinking?

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

Replacing unequal numbers with unequal treatment doesn't get rid of inequality, it only transfers it into a different form.

[The Caleshan Valkyrie]

I don't see a problem with it. If the studies are correct, it might actually help those companies in the long run to have at least one woman in the board room.

Still having a hard time figuring how one woman in a board room is such an imposition.

Because men in the higher IQ corner (not sure about EQ that defines professional success better, although iirc there was a study that shows IQ correlated with EQ) outnumber women at a 3:1 or 4:1 ratio. Given that most companies dont have a board of members large enough, thats p unfair for businesses. Nonetheless, putting women on a chair because of their gender rather than their specialization is yet again a major flaw.

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.

[Len Hyet]

Because men in the higher IQ corner (not sure about EQ that defines professional success better, although iirc there was a study that shows IQ correlated with EQ) outnumber women at a 3:1 or 4:1 ratio. Given that most companies dont have a board of members large enough, thats p unfair for businesses. Nonetheless, putting women on a chair because of their gender rather than their specialization is yet again a major flaw.

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?

[Conserative Morality]

And this doesn't help that at all.

I'm no fan of this system,

Wow, you really got me there.

[Kanadorika]

Historically speaking, women in positions of political power have been more aggressive than their male counterparts. Female monarchs were more likely to wage war on foreign powers as a desire to be viewed as strong and determined despite being a woman.

I wonder if the same occurs in the corporate world.

[Otira]

And this doesn't help that at all.

Don't be silly, clearly having candidates chosen via nepotism to fill diversity quotas will solve the problem of nepotism.

I was worried about this law at first but you've assuaged my concerns!

[Chestaan]

I understand why such policy was created, but having more female CEOs won't liberate anyone, it's just integrating more people into the system. This is peak liberalism, thinking that having women at the top will automatically mean better conditions for all women. Top down reforms are ineffective. People like to call California "commie" but no communist is in power in California, it's just liberals, which are capitalists and reformists.

Liberal and cultural feminists: We need more women CEOs!
Marxist feminists: Capitalism hurts women. How about no CEOs?

In short, I think this doesn't help.

Couldn't have put it better myself. More diverse oppressors does not help anyone.

[Second Empire of America]

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

Then you should be a fan of this law, since it requires corporations to hire qualified women, instead of filling their boards exclusively with men who only got their jobs because of their sex.

[Hammer Britannia]

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

Then you should be a fan of this law, since it requires corporations to hire qualified women, instead of filling their boards exclusively with men who only got their jobs because of their sex.

And... your proof?

If a business hires only men, which they legally can't discriminate anyways, than that's leaving out an entire market of good ideas.

The smart decision is to allow everyone to apply, but only accept the top so and so people. Not enforce a 50/50 which could lead talent people out of a job.

[Major-Tom]

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.

[Paddy O Fernature]

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

Then you should be a fan of this law, since it requires corporations to hire qualified women, instead of filling their boards exclusively with men who only got their jobs because of their sex.

*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.

[Nueva Gaudria]

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?

[Second Empire of America]

Then you should be a fan of this law, since it requires corporations to hire qualified women, instead of filling their boards exclusively with men who only got their jobs because of their sex.

*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.

[Estanglia]

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

Then you should be a fan of this law, since it requires corporations to hire qualified women,

Or unqualified women, if there aren't any females qualified enough they can hire.

instead of filling their boards exclusively with men who only got their jobs because of their sex.

[Citation needed]


GD was saying that people should be hired based on merit, not their sex. Why would they support a law that mandates hiring based on sex?