The debate of the fairness and efficacy of quota systems heated up this week after German legislators have passed a law requiring the top 100 companies to allot at least 30 percent of the seats on their boards to women within the next two years. The bill also mandated increased in women in upper level positions for some 3,500 companies. The companies could face sanctions if they cannot find enough women to fill the quota.
I have long been a critic of quota systems and this is no exception. While I certainly agree with the motivation behind the law, the emphasis of regulations should be to tear down barriers to women — not to force hiring based on gender. I am a firm believer that the market works against discriminatory values and practices. Women have made amazing strides in business and politics, as vividly shown by the leadership of Germany by Chancellor Angela Merkel.
There is clearly an underrepresentation of women on these boards. However, the way to erase that differential is to guarantee opportunities for women and to combat discriminatory practices in my view.
What do you think?
Source: NBC
“Darren Smith
Quotas are a good idea until you are the person who had worked and studied hard to be a good candidate for a position only to have that position given to a less qualified person for the sole reason of a quota. That changes a person’s perspective on the matter greatly.”
———
What exactly was said by people
at the conclusion of the Civil War (Scotland just voted on legitimate secession) in half of America?
What was said by Americans at the advent of “civil rights” (whatever that is), affirmative action (“unfair,” non-neutral bias), food stamps, Medicaid, Medicare, social services and the general welfare state?
What was said by Americans with the right to private property, freedom of speech, thought and assembly when they were ordered to submit to forced busing of their children, to rent their property to government-designated renters and to sell to government designated buyers? Of course, people do not know how to conduct these activities and the “government” KNOWS better than Americans.
*******************************************************************************************
“issac
Darrin
I understand your point. However, ideologies aside, societal evolution has been going in a direction away from privilege based on established position and towards the success in accessing the most of the best. It can be translated into individual rights or common purpose, but regardless the individual that merits the advancement held back by the status quo is the issue. In the end it comes down to the lesser of the two evils or what is most advantageous to society, in which the individual functions.
Put it this way, who would you rather have as President, a C- student that performed for a status quo or someone who made it on merit and ability alone? You might get lucky with the first and unlucky with the second but the numbers that go into the equation point to ability above all.”
———–
Wow! Really scary. What a revelation. Call me stupid. You communists took over a long time ago, huh? The “dictatorship of the proletariat.” “We know best and what we say goes, even if it is a clear and direct violation of the Founding documents and thesis.” “We don’t need no stinking Constitution.”
Damn! Why are you too afraid to nullify, void and shred the Preamble, Constitution and Bill of Rights right there on “the hill?” Just inform the people. Nothing will change. America is already there. Haul in that great big Communist Manifesto and declare it predominant. Erect a larger than life statue of Marx. Send up the Communist Flag.
It’s a Brave New World with people like you who know everything and aren’t afraid to force other people to do exactly what you tell them to.
Geez you Communists sound a lot like those pesky old Nazis.
*******************************************************************************************
Alexander Fraser Tytler –
“A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the majority discovers it can vote itself largess out of the public treasury. After that, the majority always votes for the candidate promising the most benefits with the result the democracy collapses because of the loose fiscal policy ensuing, always to be followed by a dictatorship, then a monarchy.”
—–
Ben Franklin –
“…a republic, if you can keep it.”
—–
A RESTRICTED-VOTE REPUBLIC UNDER THE BINDING PREAMBLE,
CONSTITUTION AND BILL OF RIGHTS.
THAT IS WHAT THE FOUNDERS GAVE US.
Duke Cunningham, Webb Hubbell, John Mitchell, James Trafficant, Dan Rostenkowski, Spiro Agnew, just to name a few public servants who did time for felonies while in public service. But, our Dixie attorney picks on a black woman as “second worst public servant in his lifetime.” A liberal DJ in Madison calls Condi, “Aunt Jemima.” LBJ would call her a “nigger.” So, I guess “second worst public servant” is the gentleman’s way of calling her inferior. The scotch brings out the nasty.
Condie is the second worst public servant in my lifetime after “Heckofa Job Brownie.”
http://youtu.be/DIpEwGmSsmM
Jeez Nick
You let that most appearances award published by JT go to your head. Do you get a medal or something?
I plan on staying here in MY country, some people should feel free to move to the libertarian paradise of Somalia.
GOOD ideas are in the eye of the beholder.
DBQ, Asians get the shit end of the stick and STILL flourish. Gee, could it be strong family values and hard work???
I want to mimic France vis a vis nuclear power. My mind is quite open to GOOD ideas.
There is not only the dynamic where worthy candidates get the shit end of the stick because of quotas. There is also the equally unjust situation where protected class people don’t need the assist from quotas. The people who are smart enough, talented enough, to make it into a school, get a job, on their merits. Quotas cast a pall over folks like that. Condy Rice has spoken about that aspect from her heart.
One can love Europe and love one’s own country too. Some people refuse to open their minds to things that some countries may be doing better than our own. We should be willing to learn from others.
David, If it “FEEELS” like a slur, than it is, “doncha know”. For feminists, it’s all about their “FEEELINGS.” Seldom do they talk about what they think, maybe because they are too busy “FEEELING” to think. They flop more than the worst NBA floppers.
I’m waiting for all these European lovers to move there. They have a great dole, better than here. I’ll kick in cash for plane tix.
Darrin
I understand your point. However, ideologies aside, societal evolution has been going in a direction away from privilege based on established position and towards the success in accessing the most of the best. It can be translated into individual rights or common purpose, but regardless the individual that merits the advancement held back by the status quo is the issue. In the end it comes down to the lesser of the two evils or what is most advantageous to society, in which the individual functions.
Put it this way, who would you rather have as President, a C- student that performed for a status quo or someone who made it on merit and ability alone? You might get lucky with the first and unlucky with the second but the numbers that go into the equation point to ability above all.
Another way to look at it is as it has been proven in countries like Great Britain, Germany, etc where socialism has afforded those without the previously used conduits of money and position to rise to the top on merit alone, with the assistance of the state. I have a dear friend who came from modest means and enjoyed an undergraduate degree at Cambridge on scholarships paid for through the quotas set by the government. He was always at a disadvantage as his peers were all educated at the best and most expensive private schools and had all the advantages of family connections etc. He, however, had the grades and the ability. He, never the less took a position with a large investment house in the Far East, and Australia. He sent his children to expensive schools and through medical and law school. He and his family will never have the advantages of the ‘upper class’ but because of quotas three very intelligent and productive people now make their way in the world. The system needs the infusion from all areas of the populace.
It may be splitting hairs but logic dictates that a society is only as strong as its strongest and no stone must be left unturned. Discrimination by any other name is still discrimination.
Isaac,
You make good points and it is my belief that for the most part we are seeking a common end goal. There is at the beginning a difference of approach in some ways, that can be based upon perspective.
One aspect it is my belief that fosters such an inequity in the system is where even if the students vying for a slot in university, those from the connected/privy backgrounds themselves expend less resources for them to attain an appointment where the disadvantaged pupil must make herculean foci in thought to accomplish the same end result. As I believe you mentioned in your words, the affirmative action allowed a position for which the striving disadvantaged pupil ascended to an appointment.
But in seeking implementation of a meritocracy (which is a strategy I try to achieve in the various businesses I have owned in the past) it would be better served to correct the status-quo from a structural rewiring at the top. One where there is no legacy pledges, or titles of nobility, or entrance exams drawn to only include the ruling class. If we disassemble the machine at the top, remove barriers and widen the base for slots or positions available there would be little need to impose the quota system on the applicants who are the ones disrupted more.
A meritocracy can involve a situation where in evaluating candidates one portion of the procedure looks at the skill and talent sets of the prospective student / employee to discover what attributes that he/she can bring to the whole in which might be lacking among the candidate pool. That way the well rounded or gifted specialists have valued in each individual respect and when combined together after their collective appointment to the college or company they become the machine of university, not the old, and unworkable relic that had no purpose other than to protect the status quo.
Just a few thoughts, thank you for yours.
Elaine M:
In a situation of scarcity allocation of resources (ie, jobs, judgeships, scholarships, widgets … whatever) is based on societal priorities. In the US, we pay lip service to merit based decision-making but money, family connections, and intra-group loyalty are at least equally important. That Germany seeks to redress the imbalance in this way is their choice. The moral equation is neutral. One group prospers while another suffers; now the roles are reversed. The great truism, “Life Isn’t Fair,” should be amended to read “Life Isn’t Unfair — All the Time.”
Certain groups were marginalized for decades…centuries. It is difficult indeed to make up for the injustices for the past.
shareholders don’t elect their boards? I have a fund with holdings there….how shall they vote? This has global implications….unless shareholders never did get to vote on the boards….which i’ve never read in a proxy stmt…they always talk ‘global risk’ like war and never disclose stuff like this.
David,
You wrote:
Elaine M wrote: “So what happened to all the women who were/are supposed to “temper” the bloodthirsty males?”
Unfortunately, they became feminists and lesbians which has led to homosexual marriage and the destruction of the family. Women have forsaken their God given role to complete a man, and men have forsaken their God given role to complete the woman.
…..
You say you aren’t using the terms as slurs. Okay, then you are using the terms as perjoratives. You claim that feminists and lesbians have led to the destruction of the family. Please provide proof of such.
I don’t consider my role in life to be that of helping to complete a man. I have to wonder what century–or millennium–that you are psychologically living in.
Isaac,
I know what you are saying about the access to positions that were limited to a formerly closed playing, field yet the individual who is rejected for the position as I mentioned is not likely to be so altruistic that when they do not get the job they are proud that the system passed them over.
This is a situation in the United States where the rights of the individual posed against the rights of the group. We tend to value individual rights but when we start muddling it with what is beneficial to the group it is often the single individual who can be marginalized. It can be in many ways a situation where the diminishment of support to the rights of the individual collectively can affect the whole in aggregate.
http://www.latimes.com/local/california/la-me-adv-asian-race-tutoring-20150222-story.html#page=1
Lee’s next slide shows three columns of numbers from a Princeton University study that tried to measure how race and ethnicity affect admissions by using SAT scores as a benchmark. It uses the term “bonus” to describe how many extra SAT points an applicant’s race is worth. She points to the first column.
African Americans received a “bonus” of 230 points, Lee says.
She points to the second column.
“Hispanics received a bonus of 185 points.”
The last column draws gasps.
Asian Americans, Lee says, are penalized by 50 points — in other words, they had to do that much better to win admission.
“Do Asians need higher test scores? Is it harder for Asians to get into college? The answer is yes,” Lee says.
“Zenme keyi,” one mother hisses in Chinese. How can this be possible?
Your argument is weak when compared to the successes achieved through programs that have allowed those who are capable but not well placed/born to rise and benefit all
Sure. Tell that to the children of Asian immigrants who are adversely selected against because they are too smart or score too well. All that competency and hard work is negated by their not being the “right” sort of minority. Capable, not well placed but kicked out because the quota system works against them.
http://www.thecollegefix.com/post/15571/
http://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/2012/12/19/fears-of-an-asian-quota-in-the-ivy-league/discrimination-is-obvious
Since Asians are generally at the top in the SAT scores, to prevent them getting accepted on merit, some colleges actually do a handicap type of system where the Asians have to score significantly higher than even normally for them to just be able to get even with the generous handicap score given to hispanics and blacks.
Your argument is weak when you say this is a benefit to society. HOW is it beneficial to keep the accomplished and talented down and promote beyond their capabilities others merely based on a quota that considers skin color or gender more important.?