The Market Ticker
Commentary on The Capital Markets- Category [Social Issues]
2017-08-11 08:43 by Karl Denninger
in Social Issues , 490 references
[Comments enabled]  

So it is offensive and not ok to speak the truth.

The engineer in question who penned the piece probably knew the odds were high that he'd get canned.  Nonetheless, having read the entire thing, it's not only correct on an ideological basis (conservatives are considered persona-non-grata in many environments) it's also scientifically accurate.

“To suggest a group of our colleagues have traits that make them less biologically suited to that work is offensive and not OK,” part of the CEO's note, entitled “Our words matter,” reportedly read.

That's not what the piece said, so obviously lying is now part of Google's "words" that "matter."

What the piece pointed out were some pretty-basic facts and how they might influence personal choice when it comes to fields of employment.

For example, it is a biological fact that men are biologically disposable.  The old saw about a man's minimum contribution to creating a new life being over in 20 seconds, while for a woman it inevitably requires at least nine months isn't sexism it's science.  Science isn't "offensive", it just is.

Now let's project that onto the workplace.  Let's assume that the collective decision is made by a company to engage in a project that is expected to take more than a year and for which the primary engineering talent is going to be asked to work 60+ hour weeks for the duration every single week.

Never been there, you say?  I have -- multiple times -- in my professional career.  Let me note that in none of those instances was the "request" a surprise; in fact in all cases I took the job knowing that was the "ask".  In the last case since I was founding the company I knew exactly what the expectations were going to be.

Could I also have, during the same 2-year period, become a father?  Yes.

Could a woman also, during the same 2-year period, become a mother?  No.

That's not sexism it's scientific fact.  It would have been physically impossible to both meet the requirements of the job and bear a child; even with an extremely aggressive (short) time off to actually have the kid, and zero complications it would have been physically impossible to perform the tasks put before me.

This doesn't mean that a woman cannot choose not to have kids at any given point in time.  But I will also point out that the period of time in most people's lives where they can do the "burn the candle on both ends and not wind up in the morgue doing it" game is in the key ~22-35 time frame -- exactly when most people would possibly like to start or add to families.

So if just half of women in the workforce decide that they'd like to have kids then they would not take jobs that had these demands.  That right there explains why you have one in five, roughly, women in hard-driving engineering areas -- and that makes the assumption that only half of all women would like to bear children!  In fact I suspect the percentage is much higher than 50%.

The outcome is not due to discrimination it's due to individual choice and both men and women have the right to make said choice.

Of course today we can and do turn this "problem" (that is, the choice someone makes) into sexism against men by demanding that no company ever place such a schedule before its engineering staff, and we can do it quite-effectively by mandating various policies such as paid parental leave whether equally available to both genders or not and other similar political decisions.

But if we do so then we cripple those firms that would otherwise be able to embark on such a project and succeed because we make that endeavor illegal to undertake.

This is, incidentally, exactly what the fired engineer was talking about.

When people speak of "high pressure" jobs most folks who have never done that sort of work have no idea what the hell they're referring to.  I do -- basically my entire professional career consisted of doing exactly those sorts of jobs under that sort of pressure.  It'll probably kill me some day; I'm sure I clocked off some years on my longevity by making that choice.

Make no mistake folks -- it was a choice, it was willingly made, and I do not regret it.

Can women make that choice?  Of course.  But by doing so they preclude other choices, such as having a family during that period of time.  That's science, not sexism.  A man can create a family under those conditions.  Maybe he won't choose to and maybe he shouldn't choose to, but he can, where a woman simply cannot.  It's virtually a biological impossibility and it has been a flat legal impossibility for decades.

To state as a matter of "corporate principle" that there are no biological and scientific differences between the sexes that bear on their representation in various parts of the workforce is a lie.  To state that one will not accept those differences that exist is to reduce the potential of said collective firm to the lowest common denominator of capacity of either sex in all respects because instead of forming groups within a company to utilize the strengths of each sex you instead demand that the inability expressed by any employee in the company become that to which all must conform.

This is exactly the argument that people like Sheryl Sandberg of Face****er likes to make and her argument has nothing to do with equality but is rather intended to cripple any firm that could challenge Facebook by making it impossible for them to do what Facebook previously did -- which involved requiring that sort of work schedule and output by its engineers!

Sheryl, in other words, wishes to mandate under threat of being shot that any potential competitor be crippled so as to not be able to take Facebook on.  For this she should be tried and imprisoned, along with the rest of Facebook management, under 100+ year old law that forbids monopolistic practices such as this (15 USC Ch 1.)

That's what Google allegedly "supports" but just like Sheryl Google's "support" has zero to do with "justice"; it is entirely-focused on suppressing competition.

It's also what the grievance industry and social justice warriors want, support and demand.  But at the same time they refuse to prosecute their war against those firms that built themselves up using and today live by the above scientific fact or even worse, just plain discriminate and yet give lip-service and pander to their bull****.  Take a look around the boardrooms and top executive positions at various competitively-successful firms and may I note that most board members in most firms are old enough that further child-bearing is not at issue.  Boeing anyone -- right in the middle of SJW heaven in Seattle.   How many women?  Two.  How about Amazon? Google itself?  Gee, the bastion of this screamfest has what percentage of women on the board -- and zero, I might add, in the top four officer positions!  How many officers on Netflix's board are women?

Now tell me again all about the SJW demands and why those four firms along with all the rest are given "exemption certificates".......

Guess what?  You can demand all you want, you can even get that infantile screaming turned into law in the United States but you can't force the rest of the world to put up with your bull**** and it won't.

Adopting such positions as a company is in fact how you lose in a competitive world.

Adopting such positions as a nation is how you get buried competitively on a global scale. 

There are plenty of people, myself included, who will not start a company under these conditions.  Had they existed in 1993 I would not have founded MCSNet.  Until and unless they go away that's a final decision on my part and, I argue, the only logical decision for any person in the US to make.  No more business ventures in this environment -- period. The SJW folks can stuff it.

Those are facts folks, and we as a nation must choose.  We must choose to either die competitively as a result of these "social justice" ****heads or we must, while respecting their right to speak, say "no" to them, shun them, refuse to play their game and in fact destroy them and their attempted strong-arm garbage exactly as they seek to destroy everyone else through their puerile and outrageous denial of facts.

View this entry with comments (opens new window)
 

Main Navigation
MUST-READ Selection:
A One-Sentence Bill To Force The Health-Care Issue

Full-Text Search & Archives
Archive Access
Legal Disclaimer

The content on this site is provided without any warranty, express or implied. All opinions expressed on this site are those of the author and may contain errors or omissions.

NO MATERIAL HERE CONSTITUTES "INVESTMENT ADVICE" NOR IS IT A RECOMMENDATION TO BUY OR SELL ANY FINANCIAL INSTRUMENT, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO STOCKS, OPTIONS, BONDS OR FUTURES.

The author may have a position in any company or security mentioned herein. Actions you undertake as a consequence of any analysis, opinion or advertisement on this site are your sole responsibility.

Market charts, when present, used with permission of TD Ameritrade/ThinkOrSwim Inc. Neither TD Ameritrade or ThinkOrSwim have reviewed, approved or disapproved any content herein.

The Market Ticker content may be sent unmodified to lawmakers via print or electronic means or excerpted online for non-commercial purposes provided full attribution is given and the original article source is linked to. Please contact Karl Denninger for reprint permission in other media, to republish full articles, or for any commercial use (which includes any site where advertising is displayed.)

Submissions or tips on matters of economic or political interest may be sent "over the transom" to The Editor at any time. To be considered for publication your submission must include full and correct contact information and be related to an economic or political matter of the day. All submissions become the property of The Market Ticker.