Jstar fishz Korwin-Mikke

Off Topic > Off Topic

<< < (9/11) > >>

PhantOS:

--- Quote from: Tactical Nuke on July 17, 2017, 02:26:43 AM ---the difference is that states were nonexistent before they became part of the united states, so as the lands were discovered they got admitted as states into the country

meanwhile in the EU you've got several sovereign countries being linked together and being governed by just one of the sovereign countries, unlike in the US where the government is just its own entity

--- End quote ---
i dont like to argue about federalism. the only thing i can say is that it should be the people's choice to federalize or de-federalize. if countries want to remove themselves from a centralized system, they can and should. however, wanting to federalize and form a collective doesn't make you a national socialist. it means you want a secure global connection that is mutually beneficial. nobody owns the EU, it is operated by all its members as a whole. in national socialist germany's case, they wanted to take land and rule over it, which means they would own it.

--- Quote from: Kearn on July 17, 2017, 02:28:08 AM ---his entire point is that they are paid less because they are less able to do their jobs, not because they should be paid less no matter what

https://youtu.be/_NEqlfWSOrQ?t=23

--- End quote ---
if you are unable to operate your job in your current condition, than yes you should be payed less. if this means you need to pick up boxes that are 7 feet high and you're a 5 foot woman, you shouldn't be in that job. unfortunately, not longer than 40 years ago being a certain gender or race -would- change your pay. i think it's mainly his fault for stating it in such a blunt in confusing way aka "women must be payed less because they are different"

in general, every gender is biased for or against one another. in our country, there are objectively more men in management positions, which technically isn't men's fault as a whole but the fact that men are dominant creates a feedback loop of employing more men in management positions. luckily, we have regulations that make it so gender can't factor into employment benefits, and by some miracle it happens to work pretty well.

Tactical Nuke:
yeah the more I think about it, he's an ultra-capitalist so he would probably be against a government-enforced wage gap

what I think he's saying is that women are weaker, smaller and less intelligent, so LOGICALLY they should earn less

emus are flightless birds because their physically structure can't support the muscles required for flight, plus their wings are inadequately sized, therefore they can't fly and LOGICALLY they shouldn't fly

it might be something lost in translation and it might be the reason why he's able to say to Piers Morgan that he "never said women should earn less" even though he technically did

Kearn:

--- Quote from: PhantOS on July 17, 2017, 02:32:27 AM ---if you are unable to operate your job in your current condition, than yes you should be payed less. if this means you need to pick up boxes that are 7 feet high and you're a 5 foot woman, you shouldn't be in that job. unfortunately, not longer than 40 years ago being a certain gender or race -would- change your pay. i think it's mainly his fault for stating it in such a blunt in confusing way aka "women must be payed less because they are different"

--- End quote ---

that's just his personality. he is a very blunt person and doesn't specify sources, but a lot of what he says and believes is backed up empirically or historically to some degree. i'd imagine he would have little to no problem with a man and woman of identical height, strength, and intellect being paid the same for the same job

--- Quote from: PhantOS on July 17, 2017, 02:32:27 AM ---in general, every gender is biased for or against one another. in our country, there are objectively more men in management positions, which technically isn't men's fault as a whole but the fact that men are dominant creates a feedback loop of employing more men in management positions. luckily, we have regulations that make it so gender can't factor into employment benefits, and by some miracle it happens to work pretty well.
--- End quote ---

i dont really care either way about antidiscrimination laws for employment, but quotas should never be a thing. if men naturally have the qualifications and social skill and dominance necessary for leadership more often than women, then it should naturally be a predominantly male profession. the problem is that it's hard to prove someone's thoughts and you often just wind up with employment quotas and magic lawsuits over not having a "proportional" number of male/female employees

PhantOS:
statistically, women will always earn less as a combined total, since they are biologically inferior to men. on an individual basis, however, women should earn the same amount for their work as men.

having a biological disability shouldn't affect how much you earn but should affect whether or not you are employed. i'm asthmatic so obviously i'm unable to serve in the military or as an astronaut. if they hired me and i had an asthma attack in the field and it resulted in a loss of like, a million dollar equipment, it would be entirely their fault for employing me. however, for the jobs that do employ me, my asthma shouldn't affect my pay in any way

i support maternity leave for the sole reason that working women won't be able to physically support their child unless they have a source of income. whether this comes as social security from the government or from the workplace, it's a necessity

PhantOS:

--- Quote from: Kearn on July 17, 2017, 02:36:43 AM ---i dont really care either way about antidiscrimination laws for employment, but quotas should never be a thing. if men naturally have the qualifications and social skill and dominance necessary for leadership more often than women, then it should naturally be a predominantly male profession. the problem is that it's hard to prove someone's thoughts and you often just wind up with employment quotas and magic lawsuits over not having a "proportional" number of male/female employees

--- End quote ---
quotas and affirmative action are particularly tricky to work with. in theory, quotas will just affect the outcome, not the income.

if 2 people apply for a job, both with the same skills as each other, and one of them is white and the other is black, quota will determine which one is chosen. if more than 50% of the workplace is white and 2% is black, then the black worker will be chosen. this isn't inequality or unfair, it's just a less random way of selecting who is a better candidate. since workplace diversity is proven to improve productivity, businesses are objectively advantaged to follow it.

in practice the above doesn't always happen, but in general that's what it's supposed to do. statistically, white men will always be disadvantaged by quotas due to the quantity of them in our country, as there will always be more skilled white men than skilled black men or skilled women. either way, having a workplace with a lack of diversity statistically disadvantages the minority and causes a loss of net gain

Navigation

 Message Index

Go to full version