Where have America's Defenders Gone?
10-26-2006 09:21 AM
It makes no claim to do so. 'Rewards' go to those who are right about their risks more often than not in ways that matter to others.
Originally Posted by anabolicrhino
And who has made the greater loss there, the manager or the salesman? They've both lost time, they've both lost opportunities. The 'profits' the manager loses through opportunity costs are by your own admission bigger than those lost by the salesman; he stands to earn more, therefore his opportunity costs are greater. I don't see the negative of the situation. Those who try and predict the most efficient way to use resources and are right get rewarded at all levels, those who fail get punished at all levels. Seems rational and equitable to me, though the latter judgement is unnecessary in my view.
However the system can punish the person who makes the greater mistakes. The "crappiness" of the salesman is relative to the specific skill of selling.(with all due respect) Ultimately, the "decision" to hire the crappy salesman is the greater mistake, so it brings the greater punishment(loss of opportunituy)
Edit: With regard to market effects on employees and supposed monopsony, I can tell you from direct experience after years in human resources, recruiting, sourcing, hiring and firing people that companies who low-ball people rarely get the hires they want. I have a couple of clients who routinely try this because they think they're hot **** and people should be happy to work for them. The Job Orders go unfilled until their central HR gives up and hands them off directly to local managers whose first action is usually to raise the cap on the salary, at which point the position is filled within a couple weeks. And this happens with high tech and low tech JOs in all markets. When they don't raise the cap they lower the job's expectations and experience/knowledge requirements. I can understand some cynicism but I've seen this process play out in various markets under various economic conditions for all types of employers and employees and it's always the same: you low-ball people, they go elsewhere. The companies who routinely try and low-ball people also have higher employee turnover in my experience, an added cost for not paying someone what they're worth.
Last edited by CDB; 10-26-2006 at 09:38 AM.
10-26-2006 07:30 PM
Yeah, I agree it is. But, the people who interpret those results won't always agree. If differences were observed, they'd easily be brushed aside due to "socioeconomic differences" and then when those factors were removed it would be "cultural differences" then when those factors were removed it would be "poor science" and repeat.
Originally Posted by Mulletsoldier
Race isn't really used with any sincerity anymore by scientists, they prefer the term clade. So, you're right in that regard. In fact, taxonomy altogether is ridiculous, and hardly a "science". It is completely subjective. By the same logic behind the classification of certain sub-species of animals, I could make a damn good case that humans (a few hundred years back) could have been classified as different sub-species of homo sapien (wouldn't apply anymore). Now, this also means absolutely ZERO because I could also use that argument and say because humans are classified in this way, that species of animal should be classified different, etc. Then I could also say I disagree entirely with the classifications, much like is going on right now with birds. Traditionally avians and reptiles are separate classes, however, one (of the many, and the most prominent of the) debates raging right now among taxonomists is whether or not avians and reptiles should be separated into different classes. Hell, one of the major "requirements" for a species to be a different species is their ability to breed with each other. Now, by "ability" I don't mean can they have offspring? I mean, can they reproduce or are they separated by physiological, physical, or geographic obstructions that would prevent that? You could have two IDENTICAL animals separated by an ocean, capable of producing offspring, but incapable of doing so naturally and theyll be considered different species simply because of the ocean barrier.
In order to even believe that one could empirically seek to prove even the most minute difference one must presuppose that each of those terms can be defined completely independently of social and cultural constructions, which would be the basis for any genetic condition. As I said before even the term 'race' haphazzardly lumps biological, cultural, and social terms with no medical backing whatsoever.
A few hundred years ago? Well, quite a few. Soon? no real discernable races will be prevalent in most of the free world.
How many races exist? 3, 30, 3000?
We're outbred, not interbred Hicks are interbred. lol. If you continue to interbreed you'll have the same genes being recycled and all kinds of "funny" things happen. Just wanted to clarify to the wordsmith.
Is there an American race? What about a Canadian one? Any perception of both ones own 'race' and any alternate 'races' are nothing more than social constructions. The earth's population is so interbred that any distinction among 'races' is made upon superficial physical characteristics and that distinction in and of itself contradicts any genetic basis.
Intelligence differences among races (or clades) will never be investigated in the future, and for good reason. The determining factors of what is quantifiable and what is not will differ from person to person, and change from agenda to agenda. Scientists want to be excluded from politics often, and you'll never get a good scientist looking into this subject.
Conversely, the same logic applies for intelligence. The only real quantifiable measure of intelligence, IMO, would be the capacity to do certain tasks (communication, logic, spacial recognition, etc.,) completely independent of application.
Man, you're too much I wasn't referencing you, bud. I was trying to ease over the tension.
Anyway, no "small peepee" issues here bro. Projecting maybe?
Anyway, I'm done here. I never meant for this to take off in that direction. I'll be careful where I use the word "Bell Curve" in public (now I need to read the book, hahaa...). This isn't one of those issues worth even discussing the "possibilities" because there is so much emotion and ideology involved that, independent of (hypothetically) the results of incredibly good science and the best arguments, there is no chance you can get everyone to agree, or even disagree politely.
10-26-2006 07:33 PM
Binging on Pure ****ing Rage
Agreed with most of it, so lets drop it and eat cake
Originally Posted by kwyckemynd00
10-26-2006 07:34 PM
Binging on Pure ****ing Rage
And yeah, outbred..lol..I shouldn't type at 3am anymore
10-27-2006 06:03 AM
Running with the Big Boys
Anyone familiar with the "Taco Bell" curve?
It plots on a standard x/y axix how many times the "refried" beans are actually re-fried. truely enlightening.
Inbreeding is fine for dogs and horses(400?) with their high counts of chromosones, but not so much for humans(23) you can only shuffle the deck so many times.
Similar Forum Threads
By Irish Cannon in forum Politics
Last Post: 05-26-2009, 07:26 AM
By Bionic in forum General Chat
Last Post: 03-20-2009, 10:33 PM
By crazyfool405 in forum General Chat
Last Post: 02-17-2009, 03:25 AM
By bigironkiller in forum Politics
Last Post: 09-16-2008, 03:51 PM
By bpmartyr in forum Politics
Last Post: 06-15-2008, 10:54 AM