|
Now that we have a new thread, in order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a complete and thorough read before posting! NOTE: When providing a source, please provide a very brief summary on what it's about and what purpose it adds to the discussion. The supporting statement should clearly explain why the subject is relevant and needs to be discussed. Please follow this rule especially for tweets.
Your supporting statement should always come BEFORE you provide the source.If you have any questions, comments, concern, or feedback regarding the USPMT, then please use this thread: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/website-feedback/510156-us-politics-thread |
On January 23 2025 19:13 BlackJack wrote:Show nested quote +On January 23 2025 18:27 KwarK wrote:On January 23 2025 18:12 BlackJack wrote:On January 23 2025 16:35 KwarK wrote:
But all of this is beside the point, you’re raging against an affirmative action EO that, as far as I can tell, simply doesn’t exist. And you’re cheering the repeal of a piece of the civil rights desegregation framework because you think it’s some Biden era woke DEI thing. Unless I’m missing something I think you’ve been had by the culture war. They’re undoing desegregation and telling you some story about DEI in the hope that you won’t read the actual text of it or understand the context of a 1965 regulation. I'd say I was simply rectifying your incorrect framing that Trump's EO permits racist employers to pass over black candidates for being black. Trump's EO does no such thing and it even calls the civil rights protections against discrimination a "bedrock supporting equality of opportunity for all Americans." If I passed an executive order that says "All gay men should have equal rights as straight men. Also they should get to run a train on Kwark" it would be incredibly disingenuous to say Kwark wants to overturn an executive order that says "all gay men should have equal rights as straight men" because Kwark is a bigot who doesn't think gay men should have equal rights. Trump's EO address several other executive orders and you and DPB have quotemined one line from one of those executive orders to phrase it as "Trump wants to overturn civil rights protections against discrimination so that racists can racist." I didn't bring this to the thread. You guys are the ones raging about it. You're the one being taken in by the culture war. What text from the civil rights era EO was causing issues that required it to be undone? I'm a little confused by your quotemining accusation. I gave a link to the entire text of the EO and invited you to read it for yourself. I quoted zero lines of it. Is quotemining when you don't quote something and instead provide information about how to obtain the original source? Am I using that right? The purpose of the EO was to give the Federal government a tool to boycott segregated workplaces by denying them contracts. The civil rights act is the law, the EO is one of the enforcement mechanisms. They were written at the same time by the same people to be part of the solution to the same problem. Trump's argument runs as follows: 1. There is a law against segregated workplaces. 2. Therefore segregated workplaces won't happen because it's illegal. 3. So the Federal government shouldn't be barred from issuing contracts to segregated workplaces. The argument fails on the surface because making a law and enforcing a law are two different things and arguing that the very existence of a law makes enforcing it unnecessary is absurd. But it's also a very strange thing to overturn because the restriction on contracts with segregated workplaces isn't presumably a burden, especially in the context of Trump's opening assertion that there are no segregated workplaces. So what problem is being fixed here and how does issuing contracts to segregated workplaces fix it? Trump's Executive order that he wrote yesterday revoked the following executive orders Executive Order 12898 of February 11, 1994 (Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations); Executive Order 13583 of August 18, 2011 (Establishing a Coordinated Government-wide Initiative to Promote Diversity and Inclusion in the Federal Workforce); Executive Order 13672 of July 21, 2014 (Further Amendments to Executive Order 11478, Equal Employment Opportunity in the Federal Government, and Executive Order 11246, Equal Employment Opportunity); The Presidential Memorandum of October 5, 2016 (Promoting Diversity and Inclusion in the National Security Workforce). Executive Order 11246 of September 24, 1965 (Equal Employment Opportunity) The last one is the only one you keep talking about.
Which other ones did you want to talk about? Here's the first one you mentioned:
Its purpose is to focus federal attention on the environmental and human health effects of federal actions on minority and low-income populations with the goal of achieving environmental protection for all communities.
E.O. 12898 directs federal agencies to:
identify and address the disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects of their actions on minority and low-income populations, to the greatest extent practicable and permitted by law.
develop a strategy for implementing environmental justice.
promote nondiscrimination in federal programs that affect human health and the environment, as well as provide minority and low-income communities access to public information and public participation.
https://www.epa.gov/laws-regulations/summary-executive-order-12898-federal-actions-address-environmental-justice
Please explain why this EO was bad, and why it's a good thing Trump repealed it.
|
On January 23 2025 16:26 BlackJack wrote:Show nested quote +On January 23 2025 15:46 KwarK wrote:
You didn’t. The previous state was you can hire the best candidate, but you can’t hire the second best candidate because the best candidate was African American and you’re a racist. He got rid of that rule. No, the executive order that Trump overturned says that if your company has too many whites but not enough X race then you need to take affirmative action to remedy this "problem" instead of simply hiring the best candidate.It's still illegal for employers to discriminate on the basis of race, color, sex, religion, national origin as set forth in Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act so no, Trump did not "get rid of that rule." In fact the first sentence of his executive order acknowledges it: Show nested quote +Section 1. Purpose. Longstanding Federal civil-rights laws protect individual Americans from discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex, or national origin. These civil-rights protections serve as a bedrock supporting equality of opportunity for all Americans. As President, I have a solemn duty to ensure that these laws are enforced for the benefit of all Americans.
It's obvious the target of this executive order was affirmative action / DEI but the propagandists that DPB listens to pretend this was really about overturning civil rights protections so that racists can racist.
The bolded/underlined part is not stated, no. They still get the best candidate, just not from the over-represented group.
|
Best is arbitrary. No one ever has any idea what best actually means other than it being based on feels.
Academic record, personality, work-life balance, how attractive they are and how they dress all contribute to the "best" factor in that moment.
There are a surplus of people which suit your organisation purely based on a merit system. How do you actually pick "the best", then?
|
On January 23 2025 19:55 KT_Elwood wrote:
Germany switched to digital doctors notes to employers about their employees not able to work.
These notes are transfered to the place of work, and the insurance (Because Sick leave is paid by the employer for 6 weeks, and then continiued at 67% by the health insurance).
Analog, written notes of the past likely at large never reached the insurances, never made it into the statistics.
So now it's digital, and the data is more accurate.
And it shows a sudden spike of sickdays in the workforce. Sickdays that were there before.. just not in the insurance companies statistics.
Businessowners, managers, thinktanks, conservatives and rightwing populists of course immediately brushed aside any effect of the new data base, and rushed to the conclusion that the workforce must have reached peak laziness and is to be whipped harder!
They only use the talking point "Spike in Sickdays!" and repeat it to no end.
They ask for:
No pay on sick leave! Limited sick days! Police investigating people on sick leave!
Further data shows that people who are happy in their job, get sick much less.
Especially people that say their workload is adequate for the number of employees.
Employees who feel "understaffed" suffer from more sickdays, causing understaffing to be more severe.. and so on.
I hate dumb vile people shoving data under the rug that even tells them how they'd be able to save god damn money, and even make more.. but it just doesn't fit their narrative.
Conservatives tend to use every chance to rip away workers rights they get. They are like feral dogs overeating on any chance, because there might not be another soon.
Indeed people are not becoming "more lazy", we're just noticing how "lazy" people have always been (rightfully btw) to begin with. Western countries are having a burnout crisis that's almost as bad as in Asian countries, and ultra-capitalists are seething now that people are collapsing, walking away and demanding better working conditions. The logical consequence of long-term exploitation.
Also, conservatives generally have trouble understanding that "X then Y" is not the same as "X therefore Y". After =/= because of.
Reminds me of the increase in diagnosis of gender dysphoria in teens, or ADHD and such conditions. It's not a consequence of creating more people with a condition. It's instead a sign of improved diagnosis, hence leading to more individuals being recognized and thus seemingly "growing in numbers". In reality they were always there. Burned out people were always there. Mental illness and other conditions were always there. They're just getting more recognition, and hopefully more protection and support.
How dare people want to live a life worth living? How dare the slaves demand their humanity?
|
On January 23 2025 19:13 BlackJack wrote:Show nested quote +On January 23 2025 18:27 KwarK wrote:On January 23 2025 18:12 BlackJack wrote:On January 23 2025 16:35 KwarK wrote:
But all of this is beside the point, you’re raging against an affirmative action EO that, as far as I can tell, simply doesn’t exist. And you’re cheering the repeal of a piece of the civil rights desegregation framework because you think it’s some Biden era woke DEI thing. Unless I’m missing something I think you’ve been had by the culture war. They’re undoing desegregation and telling you some story about DEI in the hope that you won’t read the actual text of it or understand the context of a 1965 regulation. I'd say I was simply rectifying your incorrect framing that Trump's EO permits racist employers to pass over black candidates for being black. Trump's EO does no such thing and it even calls the civil rights protections against discrimination a "bedrock supporting equality of opportunity for all Americans." If I passed an executive order that says "All gay men should have equal rights as straight men. Also they should get to run a train on Kwark" it would be incredibly disingenuous to say Kwark wants to overturn an executive order that says "all gay men should have equal rights as straight men" because Kwark is a bigot who doesn't think gay men should have equal rights. Trump's EO address several other executive orders and you and DPB have quotemined one line from one of those executive orders to phrase it as "Trump wants to overturn civil rights protections against discrimination so that racists can racist." I didn't bring this to the thread. You guys are the ones raging about it. You're the one being taken in by the culture war. What text from the civil rights era EO was causing issues that required it to be undone? I'm a little confused by your quotemining accusation. I gave a link to the entire text of the EO and invited you to read it for yourself. I quoted zero lines of it. Is quotemining when you don't quote something and instead provide information about how to obtain the original source? Am I using that right? The purpose of the EO was to give the Federal government a tool to boycott segregated workplaces by denying them contracts. The civil rights act is the law, the EO is one of the enforcement mechanisms. They were written at the same time by the same people to be part of the solution to the same problem. Trump's argument runs as follows: 1. There is a law against segregated workplaces. 2. Therefore segregated workplaces won't happen because it's illegal. 3. So the Federal government shouldn't be barred from issuing contracts to segregated workplaces. The argument fails on the surface because making a law and enforcing a law are two different things and arguing that the very existence of a law makes enforcing it unnecessary is absurd. But it's also a very strange thing to overturn because the restriction on contracts with segregated workplaces isn't presumably a burden, especially in the context of Trump's opening assertion that there are no segregated workplaces. So what problem is being fixed here and how does issuing contracts to segregated workplaces fix it? Trump's Executive order that he wrote yesterday revoked the following executive orders Executive Order 12898 of February 11, 1994 (Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations); Executive Order 13583 of August 18, 2011 (Establishing a Coordinated Government-wide Initiative to Promote Diversity and Inclusion in the Federal Workforce); Executive Order 13672 of July 21, 2014 (Further Amendments to Executive Order 11478, Equal Employment Opportunity in the Federal Government, and Executive Order 11246, Equal Employment Opportunity); The Presidential Memorandum of October 5, 2016 (Promoting Diversity and Inclusion in the National Security Workforce). Executive Order 11246 of September 24, 1965 (Equal Employment Opportunity) The last one is the only one you keep talking about. Trump included the last one because it mandates federal contractors to take affirmative actions to improve diversity in their companies and he's pushing an anti-DEI agenda. You keep talking about the last one because somewhere in the text it says federal contractors should not discriminate and that one line allows them to sell it to you as "Trump overturns protections against discrimination so that racist employers can skip over African American candidates." That's what I mean by quotemining. There's already laws prohibiting discrimination and there's already enforcement arms for those laws. You're talking about segregation as if there's any companies in 2025 that are segregated. Trump's EO doesn't allow employers to discriminate on the basis of race. It doesn't allow for the federal government to do business with these segregated companies that don't actually exist and haven't existed in your lifetime. You're mad about the least relevant portion of this whole ordeal because that's what you've been told to be mad about.
So what does this mean? The executive branch gave themselves the power and made a system to 1) audit a company's hiring practices 2) make a bureaucratic determination whether it's discriminatory or not, outside of a court of law and 3) unilaterally withhold/greenlight any business/contracts with the government, via the above determination, purely by executive order? Does the Secretary/Department of Labor otherwise have statutory authority to do any of these things outside of cooperation with the DOJ (which is the department that prosecutes crime)?
Those two words "affirmative action" in that one EO is where affirmative action was birthed?
I can see that in the 60s that economic incentives to help companies get over Jim Crow, by forcing them to comply in order to have the lucrative federal government as a customer, could have been helpful. Otherwise I don't see one president giving an executive department the bureaucratic power to say there are too much or too few people of any race, color, religion, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity, or national origin, at some company, can be justified. Now it seems the EEOC, established by actual law, handles these cases. Plus the DOJ that has actual lawyers.
|
On January 23 2025 21:55 Uldridge wrote:
Best is arbitrary. No one ever has any idea what best actually means other than it being based on feels.
Academic record, personality, work-life balance, how attractive they are and how they dress all contribute to the "best" factor in that moment.
There are a surplus of people which suit your organisation purely based on a merit system. How do you actually pick "the best", then?
I'm not sure what you mean. The greatest chess player of the 21st century is Magnus Carlsen. He is the best by every single metric, because he has performed better in every type of chess competition than literally everyone else. It took him voluntarily stepping down from the world champion position to allow for new world champions to replace him. He is practically speaking unbeatable.
You can apply that same general concept to work.
|
On January 23 2025 22:06 Magic Powers wrote:Show nested quote +On January 23 2025 21:55 Uldridge wrote:
Best is arbitrary. No one ever has any idea what best actually means other than it being based on feels.
Academic record, personality, work-life balance, how attractive they are and how they dress all contribute to the "best" factor in that moment.
There are a surplus of people which suit your organisation purely based on a merit system. How do you actually pick "the best", then? I'm not sure what you mean. The greatest chess player of the 21st century is Magnus Carlsen. He is the best by every single metric, because he has performed better in every type of chess competition than literally everyone else. It took him voluntarily stepping down from the world champion position to allow for new world champions to replace him. He is practically speaking unbeatable. You can apply that same general concept to work.
Ergo, Vishwanathan Anand is the best candidate because he's not from the over-represented group like Magnus.
On January 23 2025 21:46 Magic Powers wrote:Show nested quote +On January 23 2025 16:26 BlackJack wrote:On January 23 2025 15:46 KwarK wrote:
You didn’t. The previous state was you can hire the best candidate, but you can’t hire the second best candidate because the best candidate was African American and you’re a racist. He got rid of that rule. No, the executive order that Trump overturned says that if your company has too many whites but not enough X race then you need to take affirmative action to remedy this "problem" instead of simply hiring the best candidate.It's still illegal for employers to discriminate on the basis of race, color, sex, religion, national origin as set forth in Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act so no, Trump did not "get rid of that rule." In fact the first sentence of his executive order acknowledges it: Section 1. Purpose. Longstanding Federal civil-rights laws protect individual Americans from discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex, or national origin. These civil-rights protections serve as a bedrock supporting equality of opportunity for all Americans. As President, I have a solemn duty to ensure that these laws are enforced for the benefit of all Americans.
It's obvious the target of this executive order was affirmative action / DEI but the propagandists that DPB listens to pretend this was really about overturning civil rights protections so that racists can racist. The bolded/underlined part is not stated, no. They still get the best candidate, just not from the over-represented group.
|
On January 23 2025 22:09 oBlade wrote:Show nested quote +On January 23 2025 22:06 Magic Powers wrote:On January 23 2025 21:55 Uldridge wrote:
Best is arbitrary. No one ever has any idea what best actually means other than it being based on feels.
Academic record, personality, work-life balance, how attractive they are and how they dress all contribute to the "best" factor in that moment.
There are a surplus of people which suit your organisation purely based on a merit system. How do you actually pick "the best", then? I'm not sure what you mean. The greatest chess player of the 21st century is Magnus Carlsen. He is the best by every single metric, because he has performed better in every type of chess competition than literally everyone else. It took him voluntarily stepping down from the world champion position to allow for new world champions to replace him. He is practically speaking unbeatable. You can apply that same general concept to work. Ergo, Vishwanathan Anand is the best candidate because he's not from the over-represented group like Magnus. Show nested quote +On January 23 2025 21:46 Magic Powers wrote:On January 23 2025 16:26 BlackJack wrote:On January 23 2025 15:46 KwarK wrote:
You didn’t. The previous state was you can hire the best candidate, but you can’t hire the second best candidate because the best candidate was African American and you’re a racist. He got rid of that rule. No, the executive order that Trump overturned says that if your company has too many whites but not enough X race then you need to take affirmative action to remedy this "problem" instead of simply hiring the best candidate.It's still illegal for employers to discriminate on the basis of race, color, sex, religion, national origin as set forth in Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act so no, Trump did not "get rid of that rule." In fact the first sentence of his executive order acknowledges it: Section 1. Purpose. Longstanding Federal civil-rights laws protect individual Americans from discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex, or national origin. These civil-rights protections serve as a bedrock supporting equality of opportunity for all Americans. As President, I have a solemn duty to ensure that these laws are enforced for the benefit of all Americans.
It's obvious the target of this executive order was affirmative action / DEI but the propagandists that DPB listens to pretend this was really about overturning civil rights protections so that racists can racist. The bolded/underlined part is not stated, no. They still get the best candidate, just not from the over-represented group.
That's such a low effort post. What is your argument?
|
Man, I feel like the US is just a dictatorship waiting to happen, unless it's "saved" by civil war. Both options are horrid. I really hope I'm wrong, or that it can be turned around.
|
United States41937 Posts
On January 23 2025 19:13 BlackJack wrote:
Trump included the last one because it mandates federal contractors to take affirmative actions to improve diversity in their companies and he's pushing an anti-DEI agenda.
Okay but I literally read the text of it and it didn't mandate that and then I linked the text of it and asked you where it said that.
On January 23 2025 19:13 BlackJack wrote:
You keep talking about the last one because somewhere in the text it says federal contractors should not discriminate and that one line allows them to sell it to you as "Trump overturns protections against discrimination so that racist employers can skip over African American candidates.
DPB brought it up but it is relevant.
If he called Trump a goatfucker you'd be here explaining that Trump actually fucked four things and three of them were human women and only one of them was a goat and that he keeps talking about the goat because the time he fucked a goat is what allows him to brand Trump a goatfucker. Yes, but okay what about the goat?
On January 23 2025 19:13 BlackJack wrote:
There's already laws prohibiting discrimination and there's already enforcement arms for those laws.
Less than there was a few days ago which is precisely the point. He reduced the enforcement of desegregation.
On January 23 2025 19:13 BlackJack wrote:
You're talking about segregation as if there's any companies in 2025 that are segregated.
Discrimination still exists.
On January 23 2025 19:13 BlackJack wrote:
Trump's EO doesn't allow employers to discriminate on the basis of race.
It just lets them get Federal money if they already were discriminating.
Read the text of the EO DPB was referencing and then tell us which bits were DEI that needed to be revoked and how revoking them helps stop DEI. You're very reluctant to talk about the incident with the goat but it really is the heart of whether or not he's a goatfucker.
|
On January 23 2025 22:06 Magic Powers wrote:Show nested quote +On January 23 2025 21:55 Uldridge wrote:
Best is arbitrary. No one ever has any idea what best actually means other than it being based on feels.
Academic record, personality, work-life balance, how attractive they are and how they dress all contribute to the "best" factor in that moment.
There are a surplus of people which suit your organisation purely based on a merit system. How do you actually pick "the best", then? I'm not sure what you mean. The greatest chess player of the 21st century is Magnus Carlsen. He is the best by every single metric, because he has performed better in every type of chess competition than literally everyone else. It took him voluntarily stepping down from the world champion position to allow for new world champions to replace him. He is practically speaking unbeatable. You can apply that same general concept to work.
First of all, no, Hikaru might be the absolute speediest champion. And while Magnus is the absolute best in one dimension, he might have other flaws that don't make him the most suitable.
Also, how many high level chess players do we have?
Also, how would you go about finding the best engineer or accountant? Also start an elo system for them? Let them duke it out in a ranked environment?
|
On January 23 2025 23:14 Uldridge wrote:Show nested quote +On January 23 2025 22:06 Magic Powers wrote:On January 23 2025 21:55 Uldridge wrote:
Best is arbitrary. No one ever has any idea what best actually means other than it being based on feels.
Academic record, personality, work-life balance, how attractive they are and how they dress all contribute to the "best" factor in that moment.
There are a surplus of people which suit your organisation purely based on a merit system. How do you actually pick "the best", then? I'm not sure what you mean. The greatest chess player of the 21st century is Magnus Carlsen. He is the best by every single metric, because he has performed better in every type of chess competition than literally everyone else. It took him voluntarily stepping down from the world champion position to allow for new world champions to replace him. He is practically speaking unbeatable. You can apply that same general concept to work. First of all, no, Hikaru might be the absolute speediest champion. And while Magnus is the absolute best in one dimension, he might have other flaws that don't make him the most suitable. Also, how many high level chess players do we have? Also, how would you go about finding the best engineer or accountant? Also start an elo system for them? Let them duke it out in a ranked environment?
The point about Hikaru proves that the best players can be determined by their results. It doesn't disprove it, it proves it. You're using Hikaru's speed chess results as the metric to prove it, and speed chess is just another sub-category of chess in which Hikaru performed the best. So no matter how you look at it, the "best" can be determined by results. In each case you don't need more than one objectively measurable metric to determine who's the "best".
The best engineers can be discovered in very similar ways. But here it's important to not conflate "output" with "skill". An engineer has to be the right one for the specific job (a good fit), not just the most skilled/knowledgeable among other engineers. Employers look at various factors like prior fields of work and see if the engineer meets certain criteria that fit the job requirements. Sometimes a level of training is required regardless of other criteria. In this way it can be determined whether a certain individual is a good fit for the job. If the selection process goes well, the engineer will hopefully be the right choice. If not it might lead to an eventual termination of the contract. Either way the "best" can be found.
|
You're simply disregarding so many factors that go into this discussion.
I wasn't trying to prove anything, was just retorting that Magnus was the best in every single metric.
If 10 000 people apply for a job, do you think the best can be found? Will HR pull out enough resources abd set up the best interviews to find this best person? How do qualifications work out if the environment doesn't suit this qualified applicant? How do you know this in advance? People settle for good enough, rather than keep going for the absolute best, by the way.
|
On January 23 2025 22:01 Magic Powers wrote:Show nested quote +On January 23 2025 19:55 KT_Elwood wrote:
Germany switched to digital doctors notes to employers about their employees not able to work.
These notes are transfered to the place of work, and the insurance (Because Sick leave is paid by the employer for 6 weeks, and then continiued at 67% by the health insurance).
Analog, written notes of the past likely at large never reached the insurances, never made it into the statistics.
So now it's digital, and the data is more accurate.
And it shows a sudden spike of sickdays in the workforce. Sickdays that were there before.. just not in the insurance companies statistics.
Businessowners, managers, thinktanks, conservatives and rightwing populists of course immediately brushed aside any effect of the new data base, and rushed to the conclusion that the workforce must have reached peak laziness and is to be whipped harder!
They only use the talking point "Spike in Sickdays!" and repeat it to no end.
They ask for:
No pay on sick leave! Limited sick days! Police investigating people on sick leave!
Further data shows that people who are happy in their job, get sick much less.
Especially people that say their workload is adequate for the number of employees.
Employees who feel "understaffed" suffer from more sickdays, causing understaffing to be more severe.. and so on.
I hate dumb vile people shoving data under the rug that even tells them how they'd be able to save god damn money, and even make more.. but it just doesn't fit their narrative.
Conservatives tend to use every chance to rip away workers rights they get. They are like feral dogs overeating on any chance, because there might not be another soon. Indeed people are not becoming "more lazy", we're just noticing how "lazy" people have always been (rightfully btw) to begin with. Western countries are having a burnout crisis that's almost as bad as in Asian countries, and ultra-capitalists are seething now that people are collapsing, walking away and demanding better working conditions. The logical consequence of long-term exploitation. Also, conservatives generally have trouble understanding that "X then Y" is not the same as "X therefore Y". After =/= because of. Reminds me of the increase in diagnosis of gender dysphoria in teens, or ADHD and such conditions. It's not a consequence of creating more people with a condition. It's instead a sign of improved diagnosis, hence leading to more individuals being recognized and thus seemingly "growing in numbers". In reality they were always there. Burned out people were always there. Mental illness and other conditions were always there. They're just getting more recognition, and hopefully more protection and support. How dare people want to live a life worth living? How dare the slaves demand their humanity?
Another thing to mention: In the same timeframe, Corona happened. Corona still exists. So in addition to all other sicknesses you could get before Corona, you can also get Corona. Having Corona usually knocks you out for about a week. So if you on average get a Corona infection every 2 years, that is another 2-3 workdays a year that you are sick now, due to an infection that simply didn't exist before.
|
On January 24 2025 00:44 Uldridge wrote:
You're simply disregarding so many factors that go into this discussion.
I wasn't trying to prove anything, was just retorting that Magnus was the best in every single metric.
If 10 000 people apply for a job, do you think the best can be found? Will HR pull out enough resources abd set up the best interviews to find this best person? How do qualifications work out if the environment doesn't suit this qualified applicant? How do you know this in advance? People settle for good enough, rather than keep going for the absolute best, by the way.
Are you asking for perfection or what is your argument? Nothing's perfect in case you're asking for that. It's not about that, it's about finding the right people for the job, and yes that can be done even with 10 000 applicants.
|
United States41937 Posts
Chess elo is not comparable to job applicant suitability. That should go without saying. You can test and measure chess ability in an objective way. You cannot measure the combination of leadership, initiative, teamwork, professionalism, personal commitment, ambition, ability and drive to continue to learn new skills, affability, likelihood to stay in the position etc. that makes someone a quality hire in anything like the same way as chess elo.
If hiring was as simple as making all applicants list their elo on their resume and picking the highest one then it'd be a hell of a lot easier. But it's not. Sometimes you reject the guy who you know would be great at a job because you know that the department has low turnover, the position was open because the person who had it for 30 years retired, the job itself hasn't changed in 30 years, and the only route to advancement they'd have would be your job which you don't plan on quitting. If someone shows me that they're ambitious, eager to use cutting edge software and techniques, and plan to make a career within the industry then they're probably not the right person for a dead end job. They'd likely outgrow it quickly and start looking for better opportunities because they're too good for the job you have available.
|
On January 24 2025 01:01 Simberto wrote:Show nested quote +On January 23 2025 22:01 Magic Powers wrote:On January 23 2025 19:55 KT_Elwood wrote:
Germany switched to digital doctors notes to employers about their employees not able to work.
These notes are transfered to the place of work, and the insurance (Because Sick leave is paid by the employer for 6 weeks, and then continiued at 67% by the health insurance).
Analog, written notes of the past likely at large never reached the insurances, never made it into the statistics.
So now it's digital, and the data is more accurate.
And it shows a sudden spike of sickdays in the workforce. Sickdays that were there before.. just not in the insurance companies statistics.
Businessowners, managers, thinktanks, conservatives and rightwing populists of course immediately brushed aside any effect of the new data base, and rushed to the conclusion that the workforce must have reached peak laziness and is to be whipped harder!
They only use the talking point "Spike in Sickdays!" and repeat it to no end.
They ask for:
No pay on sick leave! Limited sick days! Police investigating people on sick leave!
Further data shows that people who are happy in their job, get sick much less.
Especially people that say their workload is adequate for the number of employees.
Employees who feel "understaffed" suffer from more sickdays, causing understaffing to be more severe.. and so on.
I hate dumb vile people shoving data under the rug that even tells them how they'd be able to save god damn money, and even make more.. but it just doesn't fit their narrative.
Conservatives tend to use every chance to rip away workers rights they get. They are like feral dogs overeating on any chance, because there might not be another soon. Indeed people are not becoming "more lazy", we're just noticing how "lazy" people have always been (rightfully btw) to begin with. Western countries are having a burnout crisis that's almost as bad as in Asian countries, and ultra-capitalists are seething now that people are collapsing, walking away and demanding better working conditions. The logical consequence of long-term exploitation. Also, conservatives generally have trouble understanding that "X then Y" is not the same as "X therefore Y". After =/= because of. Reminds me of the increase in diagnosis of gender dysphoria in teens, or ADHD and such conditions. It's not a consequence of creating more people with a condition. It's instead a sign of improved diagnosis, hence leading to more individuals being recognized and thus seemingly "growing in numbers". In reality they were always there. Burned out people were always there. Mental illness and other conditions were always there. They're just getting more recognition, and hopefully more protection and support. How dare people want to live a life worth living? How dare the slaves demand their humanity? Another thing to mention: In the same timeframe, Corona happened. Corona still exists. So in addition to all other sicknesses you could get before Corona, you can also get Corona. Having Corona usually knocks you out for about a week. So if you on average get a Corona infection every 2 years, that is another 2-3 workdays a year that you are sick now, due to an infection that simply didn't exist before.
Well said. And on top of the additional illness, there are also many people still suffering from long Covid. In fact in the US around 25% of all adult Covid cases were long Covid cases. That's a fact that the anti-vaxxers would like to shove under the rug, because it's something that can be prevented with regular vaccine boosters. Vaccines strictly don't cause long Covid, but they do prevent long Covid by preventing infections and reducing symptoms.
At the specific time of September 2023, around 5% of American adults actively had long Covid. That has a compounding effect because it adds an additional burden on top of other illnesses in the population, just as you say each instance of an infection does.
https://usafacts.org/articles/how-many-people-have-long-covid/
https://www.statista.com/topics/11285/long-covid-in-the-united-states/
|
On January 24 2025 01:06 Magic Powers wrote:
Are you asking for perfection or what is your argument? Nothing's perfect in case you're asking for that. It's not about that, it's about finding the right people for the job, and yes that can be done even with 10 000 applicants.
I think that's what you're asking for. The best applicant doesn't get more perfect than that.
I also said the following: let's say 3 people come with equal merit (professional success, academic accolades, ...). How do you distinguish between them? How does a hiring manager grade the slight differences in past performance and schooling? It's fuzzy metrics filled with incomplete knowledge and assumptions at best.
People hire who they think will fill the role adequately, they don't keep searching for the absolute best.
|
I sometimes go off on a tangent at times and likely the following will be no different. Apologies for that.
I lost some sleep last night which I'll never get back thinking about what has been on SM recently (the inauguration, the salute, polices roll out or lack of, etc.) and whither it's of value at all. Knowing it isn't going to change my actions at all but am I suppose to close my eyes while stuff happens. Elon basically saying deal with it about the poe2 boosting could similar be applied to the gesture. Are there any meaningful consequences for them in the worst timeline, or are we left sitting here hoping that their idea of their best self interest isn't to maximize others suffering.
I'm also reminded of back in the time of the HK riots where press conferences involved officials giving nonsense replies to the media's questioning. Everyone was up in arms being mad at the officials and felt there was gotcha moment. But in retrospect the reminder of the disconnect to what was "reality", was sadly a form of compassion and all they could do, as they too were a cog in the machine.
|
On January 24 2025 01:56 Uldridge wrote:Show nested quote +On January 24 2025 01:06 Magic Powers wrote:
Are you asking for perfection or what is your argument? Nothing's perfect in case you're asking for that. It's not about that, it's about finding the right people for the job, and yes that can be done even with 10 000 applicants. I think that's what you're asking for. The best applicant doesn't get more perfect than that. I also said the following: let's say 3 people come with equal merit (professional success, academic accolades, ...). How do you distinguish between them? How does a hiring manager grade the slight differences in past performance and schooling? It's fuzzy metrics filled with incomplete knowledge and assumptions at best. People hire who they think will fill the role adequately, they don't keep searching for the absolute best.
I wasn't asking for perfect anywhere? I just don't get your inquiry. How does the world keep spinning? Because the wrong people get hired for the wrong jobs?
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
