Neither speech, language, or even a punch to the gut hurts as bad as widespread intergenerational economic injustice.
This free speech nonsense misses the point. It’s only en vogue because the Dem Party is so desperate to avoid and distract from how discrimination and injustice actually happen. Yeah sure words can hurt, but you’ll manage. Time to get with the program.
I hope you will consider one thing, and please don’t mistake it for political correctness. The phrase “from good people” is distasteful and I think we’re all better off not implying such a thing as “bad people”. If the intent is to define a division, it’s important to be specific lest we undermine our egalitarian goals. I know you don’t mean it to be exclusionary, and probably instead aim to evoke positive feelings. But, for me it does the opposite. People accustomed to being excluded are likely to read “from good people” and wonder if that includes them or not.
Right. For whatever reason, I don’t think many people realize how this will work. These companies don’t have mechanisms through which to be rational about hardline growth ceilings. Or, we could say they have developed immunities to them. The contemporary corporation is an evolved social structure that specializes emotion and undermines perception.
Google has plenty going for it: no shortage of funding, the shoe-in for hosting the first self-driving car deployments. but none of it matters because there’s nobody in charge of where to draw the line. The behaviors of these firms will increasingly baffle their spectators.
The stubbornness to avoid articulating your “culture fit” screams discriminatory hiring practices.
“Whether a person will get along with our team, and will interact appropriately” sounds like a great thing to hire for, if you have a broad definition of “appropriate”. Why not just use this language?
“Culture fit” strongly suggests you’re limiting yourself to comfortable heuristics that can be the gateway to discriminatory hiring practices.
Things like politeness, courtesy, ability to effectively communicate are just simply not a cultural concern. Why are you using that term?
How would you differentiate your “culture fit” ideals from the “mono-cultural” standards promoted by alt-right groups? Their articulations of what they mean have nothing to do with visible characteristics like skin color. Granted, it all sounds pretty racist to me, but their explanations sound like they have a lot of overlap with your hiring. agenda. All you need to do here is be specific and there shouldn’t be any problem discerning between the two, right?
So, can you explain why I should believe you’re not exercising discriminatory hiring practices?
Well, now those same graduates “of mid to low tier universities” will be graduates of high tier universities.
Will your logic still hold up?
Are you assuming a certain correlation between the university one goes to and their abilities, given equal opportunity? It sounds like you might be, but please explain yourself if not.
The more humane way to categorize people might not be to start with what “tier” their college is, especially when you’re discussing what “tier” they should have access to.
They all have healthcare when they need it and have no health-related bankruptcies or anxiety over such. Having a part-time job isn’t crippling to their health and safety. Their transportation systems are cutting edge as well.
If you combine only the tangible cost benefits of healthcare and transportation availability, that should account for approximately the difference in disposable income.
Well, they weren’t “hand picked”. More often than not, they just came from families wealthy enough to cough up for expensive art school and the cost of living in NYC. A lot of my social circle falls in this category.
That said, parent makes an important point. The US is full of art majors in general, but NYC is overflowing with them.
But, US arts jobs are now almost entirely freelance; especially if entry level. While the cost of living makes it more difficult, NYC is still one of the only places with such an abundance of work that this is feasible. You can probably get freelance work there but moving into a full-time position will be a matter of upper-class networking.
It’s not. An exception could be when the organization is referenced by a pronoun like “they”, but “they” can be used in singular or plural contexts, so it’s not exactly an exception.
What if your own government uses Facebook to communicate with it’s populace?
(For example, this)
Are you recommending everyone just stop participating in politics? I can’t imagine a more sheltered perspective. I’m guessing you’re an American. If so, please, stop following this advice! The rest of the world is begging you.
If people would stop using money rather than complaining about it, perhaps banks wouldn’t be able to cause a financial crash to begin with, so don’t blame them!
You need to recognize the level of organization you are proposing might be possible but is adamantly undermined by governments and businesses around the world, and nothing like it is found in the history books. Not even close, unless maybe you count Noah’s Ark.
Your expression here is generally only expressed by sheltered Americans, and there must be a reason almost nobody in the rest of the world would accept a such a short conception. It might be useful for someone stuck in this view to realize that.
You’re making the common (and fatal) mistake of evaluating a government on the terms of a private business entity.
Governments are of the people so long as the people maintain them as such.
When you treat a government like a business, it falls behind on it’s maintenance schedule, and begins to resemble one. There are a lot of people who wish the government was their business, and will encourage you to play along. These people work night and day to lower your expectations of what you’re capable of.
Stop falling for it!
The USA had some ingenious (and flawed) founders who set in place some rights and traditions that reserve at least a small finger hold which resembles democracy, by which the people can mobilize effectively.
But, in any nation, that fingerhold can exist when enough people come together en masse.
HN should add a forward disclaimer to the documentation acknowledging this practice.