Ultimate College Softball
Register Calendar Latest Topics
 
 
 


Reply
  Author   Comment   Page 1 of 2      1   2   Next
DietCoke

Registered:
Posts: 2,195
Reply with quote  #1 
I knew that title would make you look!

Interesting article in current Newsweek issue - Why Thomas Jefferson Favored Profit Sharing

http://mag.newsweek.com/2014/02/07/why-thomas-jefferson-favored-profit-sharing.html

An excerpt -

President Obama's State of the Union speech last week focused on America's severe and growing inequality, but he stopped short of repeating the Founding Fathers' many warnings that this condition could doom American democracy.

The founders, despite decades of rancorous disagreements about almost every other aspect of their grand experiment, agreed that America would survive and thrive only if there was widespread ownership of land and businesses.

George Washington, nine months before his inauguration as the first president, predicted that America "will be the most favorable country of any kind in the world for persons of industry and frugality, possessed of moderate capital, to inhabit." And, he continued, "it will not be less advantageous to the happiness of the lowest class of people, because of the equal distribution of property."

The second president, John Adams, feared "monopolies of land" would destroy the nation and that a business aristocracy born of inequality would manipulate voters, creating "a system of subordination to all... The capricious will of one or a very few" dominating the rest. Unless constrained, Adams wrote, "the rich and the proud" would wield economic and political power that "will destroy all the equality and liberty, with the consent and acclamations of the people themselves."

James Madison, the Constitution's main author, described inequality as an evil, saying government should prevent "an immoderate, and especially unmerited, accumulation of riches." He favored "the silent operation of laws which, without violating the rights of property, reduce extreme wealth towards a state of mediocrity, and raise extreme indigents towards a state of comfort."

Alexander Hamilton, who championed manufacturing and banking as the first Treasury secretary, also argued for widespread ownership of assets, warning in 1782 that, "whenever a discretionary power is lodged in any set of men over the property of their neighbors, they will abuse it."

Late in life, Adams, pessimistic about whether the republic would endure, wrote that the goal of the democratic government was not to help the wealthy and powerful but to achieve "the greatest happiness for the greatest number."

Professor Joseph R. Blasi and Douglas L. Kruse of Rutgers and Richard B. Freeman of Harvard gathered many of the founders' writings on this topic for their new book, The Citizen's Share: Putting Ownership Back into Democracy. Copies are currently circulating among congressional staffers in both parties as politicians brace themselves to face what polls show is a rapidly rising concern among voters over economic gains concentrating at the top.

Since 1993, almost a quarter of all income growth in the U.S. has gone to the top 1 percent of the 1 percent, about 16,000 households. At the same time, the bottom 90 percent, more than 280 million people, reported less total real income in 2012 than in 1993.


__________________
"If this is who we are or who we are becoming, I have wasted 40 years of my life. Until now it was not possible for me to conceive of an American President capable of such an outrageous assault on truth, a free press or the first amendment." - General Michael Hayden
CoachB25

Registered:
Posts: 2,234
Reply with quote  #2 
Talk about how left Newsweek has gotten.  When one delves into historical documents and does research, they are advised of the dangers of agendas.  Here the agenda is obvious and the use of the Founding Fathers quotes ignore several other facts.  The problem with these Founding Fathers and the rights of the poor versus the rich is simple.  Ownership of land and how it could not become a class issue in and of itself.  Thus the need to expand westward.  If this were the case, then the rich plantation owner could not rule the average man.  The west served as the outlet.  Now there were other concerns with this mostly dealing with the fact that as American moved Westward, the poor would then be asked to sacrifice lives in order to settle those areas.  Native Americans stood in the way at every turn.  Still, as long as they, the poor, attempted the migration, the balance existed. 

This class argument is absolutely pathetic.  The President and his policies is encouraging more to stay on the government dole.  Obamacare with aid in that.  That is exactly what the CBO was reporting this past week.  Suppose I have a job below the poverty line and am receiving government subsidies to help pay for my health care.  Suppose a job opens which pays more.  The recipient of those subsidies will do a mathamatical formula wherein they figure out how many thousand more they have to make in order to benefit from taking the job.  Estimates I've heard suggest $10,000 more per year.  So, they stay below the poverty line.  This is simply another stage in the "Fundamental Change of America" from a Democracy to Communism. 
ForeverInBlue

Registered:
Posts: 10,011
Reply with quote  #3 
People who contribute to society are doing better than parasites who suck the blood out of society.

I am positively shocked.

Maybe things will even up when low wage employees work fewer hours, per the White House suggestion. Ya think?
Dewey

Registered:
Posts: 24,423
Reply with quote  #4 
CoachB - Use the attached subsidy calculator.  I plugged in a number and then raised it by $1000 only to see the subsidy drop about $150.  Not sure this will stop folks from taking jobs that pay more.

Calculator
ForeverInBlue

Registered:
Posts: 10,011
Reply with quote  #5 
Here's an example of how a tiny bit more work (income) could prove costly in rate hikes.

http://m.weeklystandard.com/blogs/watch-out-obamacares-subsidy-cliff-earn-1-more-wages-and-you-could-pay-20000-more-insurance_778743.html

Knowledgable people will look at the program overall to determine where the break points are. Just throwing numbers out there at random then arbitrarily bumping them up is idiotic.

Contrary to the flailing about method, the article makes clear that there are cases when earning more money could prove costly. It's much like earning more income could put you into a higher tax bracket and cost you more in taxes than the raise would cover. Understanding this might require more intellect than some can muster.
Lost_1

Registered:
Posts: 2,857
Reply with quote  #6 
http://theweek.com/article/index/256563/does-obama-have-a-cbo-problem


Does Obama have a CBO problem?
A new report on the minimum wage is causing headaches for the White House
This one may be a tough sell.
This one may be a tough sell. (Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images)
 



For the second time in as many weeks, the White House on Tuesday found itself racing to contain the political fallout from a potentially damaging report from the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office.

In the latest instance, the CBO ran the numberson President Obama's proposal to raise the minimum wage to $10.10 an hour, from $7.25, by 2016. Doing so would boost the income for about 16.5 million workers, the agency says — but at a cost of around 500,000 jobs.

Naturally, Republicans seized on the report to bolster their opposition to hiking the minimum wage. "This report confirms what we've long known," said a spokesman for Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio). "While helping some, mandating higher wages has real costs, including fewer people working."

The White House swiftly pushed back against the report on a couple of fronts, both arguing that the broader economic benefits of increasing the minimum wage outweigh the potential job losses, and that the job losses probably won't happen anyway.

In a six-point response, Jason Furman and Betsey Stevenson of the Council of Economic Advisers argued that the report showed that raising the minimum wage would "help millions of hard-working families, reduce poverty, and increase the overall wages going to lower-income households." As for the employment picture, they wrote that CBO's estimates "do not reflect the overall consensus view of economists, which is that raising the minimum wage has little or no negative effect on employment."

They may be right. There is much disagreement among economists about how raising the minimum wage would impact unemployment, with most finding little to no result. Indeed, the left-leaning Economic Policy Institute recently estimated that a $10.10 minimum wage could actually lead to 85,000 more jobs.

Still, there are some problems with the White House's response.

The administration is engaging in a bit of awkward cherry-picking, touting some numbers in the report while throwing cold water on others. Essentially, it's saying CBO analysts are spot on when they produce favorable results, but terrible at their jobs when they do the opposite. The selective embrace of data is a hallmark of deliberately self-serving arguments.

That gets at a bigger issue. Democrats have long relied on the CBO to bolster their arguments on issues ranging from health care to the economy. The CBO, as a group of nonpartisan number-crunchers, is usually part of the wonky apparatus that lends credence to the Democrats' claim that reality has a liberal bias. And now the White House is saying the CBO is unreliable. So which is it?

Then there are the politics of it. Arguing with the CBO never looks good.

It's the same problem the White House encountered earlier this month when the CBO determined that ObamaCare would shrink the labor supply by 2.5 million full-time workers by 2024. Republicans latched on to that finding as proof that ObamaCare is a job killer, and that narrative initially dominated even mainstream publications. The real story was more nuanced: The CBO found ObamaCare wouldn't reduce the supply of jobs, but rather, through new incentives, allow people to retire earlier and work less, thus reducing the supply of labor.

Still, as with the latest flap, the White House had the harder sell. And regardless of the veracity of its claims, the optics of the administration vociferously pushing back against the CBO doesn't do Democrats many favors. Obama is loath to come out and say, "Losing a small amount of jobs is worth it to help a lot of poor people" — but at least that would make more sense to voters.


__________________
If we are not careful, our colleges will produce a group of close-minded, unscientific, illogical propagandists, consumed with immoral acts. - Dr. Martin Luther King


“Everyone is in favor of free speech. Hardly a day passes without its being extolled, but some people's idea of it is that they are free to say what they like, but if anyone else says anything back, that is an outrage.” Winston S. Churchill


CoachB25

Registered:
Posts: 2,234
Reply with quote  #7 
Does anyone know what our average military wage is?  Just at $8.25 an hour.  They are not included in the President's minimum wage increase.  The President thinks more of the other workers than our average military personnel.
Dewey

Registered:
Posts: 24,423
Reply with quote  #8 
CoachB - I'm rather certain that isn't true.  Maybe he only has the authority to consider minimum pay for federal contractors.  Secondly, why hasn't the House passed a bill increasing the wage of our military personnel so it isn't left up to just the President?  They have time to pass such bills.
Lost_1

Registered:
Posts: 2,857
Reply with quote  #9 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dewey
CoachB - I'm rather certain that isn't true.  Maybe he only has the authority to consider minimum pay for federal contractors.  Secondly, why hasn't the House passed a bill increasing the wage of our military personnel so it isn't left up to just the President?  They have time to pass such bills.



If knowing it will not pass the Senate, or be vetoed by the President,  then why have a House vote?   Did that paraphrase your logic from a different thread?

__________________
If we are not careful, our colleges will produce a group of close-minded, unscientific, illogical propagandists, consumed with immoral acts. - Dr. Martin Luther King


“Everyone is in favor of free speech. Hardly a day passes without its being extolled, but some people's idea of it is that they are free to say what they like, but if anyone else says anything back, that is an outrage.” Winston S. Churchill


spazsdad

Registered:
Posts: 5,329
Reply with quote  #10 
How about in LA they are trying to raise the minimum wage for hotel staff to over $15/hr under the guise of they should be able to earn a living wage doing menial tasks
The kicker of course is the rule would not apply to hotels that have unionized staff. Imagine that, another perk for their union buddies.

Also, the obscure clause that Obama used to justify his arbitrary increase hardly passes the smell test.

__________________
#SCOTUS

Dewey

Registered:
Posts: 24,423
Reply with quote  #11 
Lost_1 - Why would the Senate or President veto such a minimum pay increase and, secondly, do you have any evidence the House said any such thing?  Heck, it was the GOP segment of the House who tried to roll back military pension increases.  Unless you can show me where Obama, or the Senate, let it be known they were against any such measure, you didn't come close to my logic.
CoachB25

Registered:
Posts: 2,234
Reply with quote  #12 
Dewey, the President just stopped a pay increase for the military and yes, my stats are correct.
Dewey

Registered:
Posts: 24,423
Reply with quote  #13 
CoachB - I should have been more specific.  I was addressing your last line saying the President thinks more of other workers than military members.  I know this isn't the case but we're just exchanging opinions here.  As for stopping pay increase, you'll have to send me a link to read because I don't know what you are talking about.  I couldn't find anything in a Google search other than the December bill which lowered the cost of living raises of retired military.  They have since corrected this mistake.
woody

Registered:
Posts: 9,256
Reply with quote  #14 
Union contracts are negotiated using a minimum wage plus a negotiated rate. Federal and many State and City contracts are made at prevailing wage rates, in other words union wages. Costs are passed along to taxpayers. Not a very efficient way to use taxpayer funds, but a gift to unions.
__________________
Rats flee from the sinking vessel. They traverse nimbly upon a rope, safely cleated to the dock, that is private enterprise. Socialism is dead, and tits up in the water. A bloated, death show, for rubberneckers of all classes to view.

"IT'S GOOD TO BE DA KING"
keepinitreal

Registered:
Posts: 24,251
Reply with quote  #15 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lost_1
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dewey
CoachB - I'm rather certain that isn't true.  Maybe he only has the authority to consider minimum pay for federal contractors.  Secondly, why hasn't the House passed a bill increasing the wage of our military personnel so it isn't left up to just the President?  They have time to pass such bills.



If knowing it will not pass the Senate, or be vetoed by the President,  then why have a House vote?   Did that paraphrase your logic from a different thread?


Must have been a stumper

__________________
"I like to establish the parameters of my own thoughts and don't think I need a director."

"This is not debate class. And this is not about politeness. We're talking about the damn future of our country"

"It is not just simply yelling out a name and yelling down dissenters........................... and I'll defend your right to even insult me" 
keepinitreal

Registered:
Posts: 24,251
Reply with quote  #16 

Study Finds Highest Income Inequality in Cities That Voted For Obama

March 5, 2014 - 3:19 PM

 

 

 

Atlanta skyline

Atlanta has the nation's highest level of income inequality, according to a Brookings Institute study. (AP photo)(CNSNews.com) – President Obama has characterized income inequality as “the defining challenge of our time,” prodding Republicans to come up with “concrete plans” to reduce it.However, a new study by the Brookings Institute shows that the highest levels of income inequality in the U.S. are found in Democratic strongholds: the nation’s largest cities.

http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/barbara-hollingsworth/study-finds-highest-income-inequality-cities-voted-obama 

 
By Barbara Hollingsworth

In his Dec.4, 2013 speech, “Remarks on Economic Mobility,” Obama praised the New Deal and the War on Poverty for building “the largest middle class the world has ever known,” and lamented “a dangerous and growing inequality and lack of upward mobility that has jeopardized middle-class America’s basic bargain – that if you work hard, you have a chance to get ahead.”

The president challenged congressional Republicans to come up with “concrete plans that will actually reduce inequality, build the middle class, provide more ladders of opportunity to the poor.”

But the highest levels of income inequality in the nation are in cities that voted overwhelmingly to reelect Obama in 2012.

“Inequality in big cities exceeds the national average,” according to the study by Brookings senior fellow Alan Berube, entitled “All Cities Are Not Created Equal.”

Berube used data from the Census Bureau’s 2012 American Community Survey to calculate the “95/20 ratio” - dividing the number of households with incomes in the top 95 percent by the number of households in the bottom 20 percent.

Using this methodology, he found that the difference between the highest earners and lowest earners was greater in the nation’s 50 largest cities than in the United States as a whole.

“However, some cities are much more unequal than others,” Berube noted.

“The big cities with the highest 95/20 ratios in 2012 were Atlanta, San Francisco, Miami and Boston” – where a household with an income in the top 95th percentile earned 15 percent more than a household in the bottom 20th percentile.

They were followed by Washington, D.C., New York, Oakland, Chicago, Los Angeles and Baltimore, all of which had a 95/20 ratio exceeding 12 – compared to 9.1 nationwide.

And, it turns out, the cities with the highest levels of income equality also happen to be the same places were Obama won some of his biggest victories in 2012.

“In 2012, Obama won 69.4 percent of the vote in cities with more than 500,000 people and 58.4% of the vote in cities with 50,000 to 500,000 people,” UrbanCincy reported. The final popular vote total across the nation was a lot closer: 51 percent for Obama, and 47 percent for Romney.

Atlanta, which Brookings says has the nation’s highest level of income inequality, is the ninth largest metropolitan area in the U.S. The City of Atlanta straddles two counties, and both went for Obama in a big way in 2012. Obama beat Romney in Fulton County 64.1 to 34.4 percent, and pulled in 77.6 percent of the vote in DeKalb County compared to Romney’s 20.9 percent.

The president’s victory was even more lopsided in the City and County of San Francisco, where Obama walked away with a landslide 83.4 percent of the vote compared to Romney’s 13.0 percent.

Obama also easily won Florida’s Miami-Dade County, which includes the City of Miami, walking away with 61.5 percent of the vote compared to Romney’s 37.8 percent. Same thing in Boston, which Obama handily won 79 to 19 percent, with Romney carrying only two of the city’s 253 precincts – and one of them by just four votes.

The same pattern can be seen in the other six cities Brookings listed as having the highest level of income inequality in the U.S.:

District of Columbia: Obama got 267,070 votes (91 percent) compared to 21,381 votes (7 percent) for Romney;

New York City: 81 percent of Big Apple voters pulled the lever for Obama;

Alameda County, Calif: (which includes Oakland): 78.7 percent for Obama;

Chicago: Obama got 853,102 votes compared to Romney’s 148,181;

Los Angeles County: Obama carried it with 69.7 percent of the vote.

City of Baltimore: 87.4 percent of the votes cast were for Obama, while Romney received only 11.1 percent.

A majority of voters in only four major U.S. cities chose Republican challenger Mitt Romney over Obama, according to The Atlantic, and all four were near the bottom of the income inequality list: Phoenix (38th out of 50 cities in income inequality), Oklahoma City (41st), Fort Worth (44th) and Salt Lake City (not listed in the top 50).



__________________
"I like to establish the parameters of my own thoughts and don't think I need a director."

"This is not debate class. And this is not about politeness. We're talking about the damn future of our country"

"It is not just simply yelling out a name and yelling down dissenters........................... and I'll defend your right to even insult me" 
keepinitreal

Registered:
Posts: 24,251
Reply with quote  #17 
The high concentration of liberal voters is why the income inequality message is so powerful among democrat voters, their base.  The demoRAT experiment has failed in metropolitan areas and the idiots want a do-over.  They want more social experiments at the expense of taxpayers to try and right the ship.  The ship that they wrecked into the iceberg.  They know if they cry racism or inequality then more money will flow their way for doing absolutely nothing.
__________________
"I like to establish the parameters of my own thoughts and don't think I need a director."

"This is not debate class. And this is not about politeness. We're talking about the damn future of our country"

"It is not just simply yelling out a name and yelling down dissenters........................... and I'll defend your right to even insult me" 
CoachB25

Registered:
Posts: 2,234
Reply with quote  #18 
Oh how I wish that Crook (Cook) County was allowed to become its own state!  Get them out of Illinois and leave them to their own devices. 
DietCoke

Registered:
Posts: 2,195
Reply with quote  #19 
Good for him.

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/14/business/owner-of-gravity-payments-a-credit-card-processor-is-setting-a-new-minimum-wage-70000-a-year.html

__________________
"If this is who we are or who we are becoming, I have wasted 40 years of my life. Until now it was not possible for me to conceive of an American President capable of such an outrageous assault on truth, a free press or the first amendment." - General Michael Hayden
keepinitreal

Registered:
Posts: 24,251
Reply with quote  #20 
Wedgie issue
__________________
"I like to establish the parameters of my own thoughts and don't think I need a director."

"This is not debate class. And this is not about politeness. We're talking about the damn future of our country"

"It is not just simply yelling out a name and yelling down dissenters........................... and I'll defend your right to even insult me" 
pabar61

Registered:
Posts: 11,215
Reply with quote  #21 


I like this story too.  Of course, it's easier to do when you've already banked a fair sum under your previous $1 million salary and most of your net worth is compromised of stock.  Nevertheless, most people wouldn't do what this guy did.

It used to be that people were more generous.
mikec

Registered:
Posts: 8,378
Reply with quote  #22 
I wonder how many of the people at this guy's company could risk everything they have, start a business, and have the sense to make it profitable.

Why do all of the rank and file employees deserve the same amount as t he founder/ceo?  What in their experience approximates the smarts and risks that this guy took?

Good for him, if that's what he wants to do.  But no one there is entitled to it.

ps - at my previous company, which had about 30 employees, our average salary was more than this guy is doing, before you added in all of the benefits we provided. 
keepinitreal

Registered:
Posts: 24,251
Reply with quote  #23 
From: Sundar

Subject: Our words matter

This has been a very difficult few days. I wanted to provide an update on the memo that was circulated over this past week.

First, let me say that we strongly support the right of Googlers to express themselves, and much of what was in that memo is fair to debate, regardless of whether a vast majority of Googlers disagree with it. However, portions of the memo violate our Code of Conduct and cross the line by advancing harmful gender stereotypes in our workplace. Our job is to build great products for users that make a difference in their lives. To suggest a group of our colleagues have traits that make them less biologically suited to that work is offensive and not OK. It is contrary to our basic values and our Code of Conduct, which expects “each Googler to do their utmost to create a workplace culture that is free of harassment, intimidation, bias and unlawful discrimination.”

The memo has clearly impacted our co-workers, some of whom are hurting and feel judged based on their gender. Our co-workers shouldn’t have to worry that each time they open their mouths to speak in a meeting, they have to prove that they are not like the memo states, being “agreeable” rather than “assertive,” showing a “lower stress tolerance,” or being “neurotic.”

At the same time, there are co-workers who are questioning whether they can safely express their views in the workplace (especially those with a minority viewpoint). They too feel under threat, and that is also not OK. People must feel free to express dissent. So to be clear again, many points raised in the memo — such as the portions criticizing Google’s trainings, questioning the role of ideology in the workplace, and debating whether programs for women and underserved groups are sufficiently open to all — are important topics. The author had a right to express their views on those topics — we encourage an environment in which people can do this and it remains our policy to not take action against anyone for prompting these discussions.

The past few days have been very difficult for many at the company, and we need to find a way to debate issues on which we might disagree — while doing so in line with our Code of Conduct. I’d encourage each of you to make an effort over the coming days to reach out to those who might have different perspectives from your own. I will be doing the same.

I have been on work related travel in Africa and Europe the past couple of weeks and had just started my family vacation here this week. I have decided to return tomorrow as clearly there’s a lot more to discuss as a group — including how we create a more inclusive environment for all.

So please join me, along with members of the leadership team at a town hall on Thursday. Check your calendar soon for details.

— Sundar

__________________
"I like to establish the parameters of my own thoughts and don't think I need a director."

"This is not debate class. And this is not about politeness. We're talking about the damn future of our country"

"It is not just simply yelling out a name and yelling down dissenters........................... and I'll defend your right to even insult me" 
spazsdad

Registered:
Posts: 5,329
Reply with quote  #24 
God what a load of crap. Do people really think and talk like that.
__________________
#SCOTUS

keepinitreal

Registered:
Posts: 24,251
Reply with quote  #25 
Quote:
Originally Posted by spazsdad
God what a load of crap. Do people really think and talk like that.


At Google they do

__________________
"I like to establish the parameters of my own thoughts and don't think I need a director."

"This is not debate class. And this is not about politeness. We're talking about the damn future of our country"

"It is not just simply yelling out a name and yelling down dissenters........................... and I'll defend your right to even insult me" 
Lost_1

Registered:
Posts: 2,857
Reply with quote  #26 
Quote:
Originally Posted by TerpAlum
Now back to income....

Google is currently under Federal audit because preliminary data shows they pay women significantly less than men for the same qualifications, tenure, and education. Perhaps that is the reason women do not want to work there, and yes that is illegal. Perhaps they should forego their Federal contracts and go back to the private sector if the company and its employees can't stand the scrutiny.

So that is the environment they are in. The dimwit who wrote the anti-diversity letter is just that, a dimwit.


http://gizmodo.com/exclusive-heres-the-full-10-page-anti-diversity-screed-1797564320?rev=1501965015200&utm_campaign=socialflow_gizmodo_twitter&utm_source=gizmodo_twitter&utm_medium=socialflow


Just read his 10 page memo, very much of it is spot on. Googles response was exactly what he laid out in the memo:


Reply to public response and misrepresentation

I value diversity and inclusion, am not denying that sexism exists, and don’t endorse using stereotypes. When addressing the gap in representation in the population, we need to look at population level differences in distributions. If we can’t have an honest discussion about this, then we can never truly solve the problem. Psychological safety is built on mutual respect and acceptance, but unfortunately our culture of shaming and misrepresentation is disrespectful and unaccepting of anyone outside its echo chamber. Despite what the public response seems to have been, I’ve gotten many personal messages from fellow Googlers expressing their gratitude for bringing up these very important issues which they agree with but would never have the courage to say or defend because of our shaming culture and the possibility of being fired. This needs to change.

TL[biggrin]R

  • Google’s political bias has equated the freedom from offense with psychological safety, but shaming into silence is the antithesis of psychological safety.
  • This silencing has created an ideological echo chamber where some ideas are too sacred to be honestly discussed.
  • The lack of discussion fosters the most extreme and authoritarian elements of this ideology.
  • Extreme: all disparities in representation are due to oppression
  • Authoritarian: we should discriminate to correct for this oppression
  • Differences in distributions of traits between men and women may in part explain why we don’t have 50% representation of women in tech and leadership. Discrimination to reach equal representation is unfair, divisive, and bad for business.

Background [1]

People generally have good intentions, but we all have biases which are invisible to us. Thankfully, open and honest discussion with those who disagree can highlight our blind spots and help us grow, which is why I wrote this document.[2] Google has several biases and honest discussion about these biases is being silenced by the dominant ideology. What follows is by no means the complete story, but it’s a perspective that desperately needs to be told at Google.


Google’s biases

At Google, we talk so much about unconscious bias as it applies to race and gender, but we rarely discuss our moral biases. Political orientation is actually a result of deep moral preferences and thus biases. Considering that the overwhelming majority of the social sciences, media, and Google lean left, we should critically examine these prejudices.




Seems his analysis of the culture of Google and the left in general is spot on. As pointed out, Google isn't looking for a solution, they are wanting an echo chamber. If you can't examine the problem at the root how do you solve it?

__________________
If we are not careful, our colleges will produce a group of close-minded, unscientific, illogical propagandists, consumed with immoral acts. - Dr. Martin Luther King


“Everyone is in favor of free speech. Hardly a day passes without its being extolled, but some people's idea of it is that they are free to say what they like, but if anyone else says anything back, that is an outrage.” Winston S. Churchill


Lost_1

Registered:
Posts: 2,857
Reply with quote  #27 

ex:

Only facts and reason can shed light on these biases, but when it comes to diversity and inclusion, Google’s left bias has created a politically correct monoculture that maintains its hold by shaming dissenters into silence. This silence removes any checks against encroaching extremist and authoritarian policies. For the rest of this document, I’ll concentrate on the extreme stance that all differences in outcome are due to differential treatment and the authoritarian element that’s required to actually discriminate to create equal representation.

__________________
If we are not careful, our colleges will produce a group of close-minded, unscientific, illogical propagandists, consumed with immoral acts. - Dr. Martin Luther King


“Everyone is in favor of free speech. Hardly a day passes without its being extolled, but some people's idea of it is that they are free to say what they like, but if anyone else says anything back, that is an outrage.” Winston S. Churchill


spazsdad

Registered:
Posts: 5,329
Reply with quote  #28 
People that rail against this memo either.
A. Never read it.
B. Are so blinded by their SJW agenda they cannot wrap their mind around rational thought.

__________________
#SCOTUS

bluedog

Registered:
Posts: 10,128
Reply with quote  #29 
Income equality is as stupid as affirmative action and global warming...........
keepinitreal

Registered:
Posts: 24,251
Reply with quote  #30 
Quote:
Originally Posted by bluedog
Income equality is as stupid as affirmative action and global warming...........


and women in combat....and trannies in the military

__________________
"I like to establish the parameters of my own thoughts and don't think I need a director."

"This is not debate class. And this is not about politeness. We're talking about the damn future of our country"

"It is not just simply yelling out a name and yelling down dissenters........................... and I'll defend your right to even insult me" 
Previous Topic | Next Topic
Print
Reply

Quick Navigation:

Easily create a Forum Website with Website Toolbox.