Comments on: March 29 roundup

By: William Nuesslein

William Nuesslein — Wed, 31 Mar 2010 12:33:28 +0000

For Nevins,

Employers would like to have capable employees for their labor dollar, and various employment tests have been used over time to select better candidates for jobs. By definition, employers have no economic incentive to exclude talented women and minorities . Since valid tests almost always discriminate against women and minorities, it is argued that the tests are not valid for these groups and policies are put in play to meet indirect quotas.

But if the tests are valid for all, and there is no evidence against that, quota people will under-perform. The Texaco case of years past comes to mind where affirmative action hires failed to earn subsequent promotions.

“And there’s a legal limit to the snow here, in Camelot.” Ability, such as the ability to play modern basketball, is a given. Legislation may mitigate the disparate impact of group differences with respect to various talents, but we have to recognize that such legislation often comes at great costs, including the besmirching of decent people..

By: nevins

nevins — Mon, 29 Mar 2010 20:56:29 +0000

“Quotas for women executives in boardroom and top corporate posts …”
Women should learn from the experience of other groups who have ‘benefited’ from quotas. Everyone know (or at least believes that they know) who the individuals are who are there because of the quota and those who are there for merit. Just because one is on the other side of a perceived barrier does not mean that they are full members of the club. Ways to exclude them and their influence are plenty. Those who got to the top through merit have played the game long enough to know how to marginalize someone without risk of legal backlash.

By: Jack Wilson

Jack Wilson — Mon, 29 Mar 2010 15:45:47 +0000

“Teen beauty queen portrayed as spoiled brat on ‘Wife Swap’ files $100M lawsuit”

I wonder if she would settle for, say, $1M?