Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

[deleted] t1_j4kfj5a wrote

Reply to comment by [deleted] in German defense minister announces resignation by misana123

[removed]

180

[deleted] t1_j4kjt0n wrote

[removed]

112

[deleted] t1_j4kp7ik wrote

[removed]

−62

[deleted] t1_j4krtwm wrote

[removed]

78

[deleted] t1_j4ksgpy wrote

[removed]

−39

[deleted] t1_j4ksusl wrote

[removed]

11

[deleted] t1_j4kt6ve wrote

[removed]

0

[deleted] t1_j4kxzk6 wrote

[removed]

20

[deleted] t1_j4lh51m wrote

[removed]

2

ibarfedinthepool t1_j4lyckw wrote

I get your point, and your point is valid. But consider both sides of it: unqualified bro gets promoted because friends - bad, also unqualified female gets promoted because quota - also bad.

1

[deleted] t1_j4m60dv wrote

[deleted]

1

ibarfedinthepool t1_j4m8i1i wrote

I agree with some of this, but back to the underlying point so we don't get too distracted: they cannot just leave the position for German defence minister open.......

1

[deleted] t1_j4kysbz wrote

[removed]

0

ibarfedinthepool t1_j4l2lom wrote

And you're kinda proving my point - let's pick our surgeons based on merit, not quotas. Same for defense minister.

13

Basas t1_j4ltbaw wrote

If you have a complicated operation that has high chances to go bad you will pray for the best surgeon regardless of their gender and not "sufficiently competent" one.

2

SunChamberNoRules t1_j4lvcnj wrote

How does a quota stop you from doing that? Not only are you able to pick from the 50% best male surgeons, you're also able to pick from the 50% best women surgeons!

1

Basas t1_j4lyf0b wrote

If you hire because of a quota and not because they are the best some will turn out to be not as good as they could be.

5

SunChamberNoRules t1_j4m0ghu wrote

Why do you say that? I have explained why the 'top' people are not necessarily picked on merit.

0

Basas t1_j4m1xtx wrote

I think you are just not very good at math.

3

[deleted] t1_j4kwigl wrote

[removed]

6

[deleted] t1_j4kwnbb wrote

[removed]

4

[deleted] t1_j4kx2da wrote

[removed]

−3

[deleted] t1_j4kx6xh wrote

[removed]

9

Diligent-Road-6171 t1_j4kxtng wrote

If the discounted returns on that spending is less than the spending, then absolutely I would oppose it.

What's the return on systemically screwing your economy for "gender balance" when compared to doing nothing? Here's a hint, whatever number you say... It's lower.

2

SunChamberNoRules t1_j4kzhir wrote

Ah, so you assume that women aren't competent enough for those positions.

−1

Diligent-Road-6171 t1_j4kzo32 wrote

When you make a law so that they will get those positions, then you're guaranteeing that they are not competent enough for them.

1

SunChamberNoRules t1_j4kzt62 wrote

Ima just copy and paste what I said earlier;

Sometimes there are institutional effects that unfairly bias against one gender. As an example, C-level execs were historically men. They tended to pick replacements based on people they knew or had mentored - who typically were also men. It was much harder for women to both get into that level, and then be treated as equals within that level, creating a disincentive for other women to try and reach that level. This naturally means that men were more likely to be C-level execs and a gender imbalance persists not based on competence, but based on institutional culture.

That's what quotas are there for. They're to turboboost the process of removing institutional disincentives to gender equality.

−1

Diligent-Road-6171 t1_j4kzvrt wrote

You're really just proving my point.

1

SunChamberNoRules t1_j4l06yw wrote

Then you haven't sufficiently tried to engage with the argument to understand it.

1

Diligent-Road-6171 t1_j4l15rh wrote

I understand the argument, the problem is that you haven't actually done the math, and your view and the policies you support are not actually backed by any data.

Even just looking at it from purely economic terms, you need reliable answers to the following questions just to begin calculating a high level estimate of the costs and benefits of the policies you support.

Since you support these benefit, surely you will be able to provide me with well sourced answers to the following questions:

1 - What is the discounted lifetime cost of this historical institutional imbalance that you mention?

2 - How many years earlier would those institutional imbalanced be fixed, if such a system as you propose (whether quotas, or anything else) were to be implemented?

3 - What is the discounted lifetime total economic cost of imposing such policies? Not just the first order costs, but also the effect it would have on present (and near future) hits of productivity, structural incentives, risks, etc...

Once you have answers to those 3 questions, then we can start looking into other effects, and other costs, but the fact of the matter is i suspect you haven't actually got reliable and well sourced answers to those questions, and that the answer you do have are not likely to support your stance.

3

SunChamberNoRules t1_j4l1qjt wrote

Lol no, I’m not going to do that.

1

[deleted] t1_j4knr8b wrote

[removed]

28

[deleted] t1_j4kiqmz wrote

[removed]

17