Workplace Quotas for Women?
The following is based on this post at Richard's Midlife Crisis.
Imagine eight young people graduate, four girls and four boys.
G B
G B
G B
G B
Reasonably, their skill levels are different. Statistics on the variability of people's intelligence are available on the web, and most people understand that there is a 'bell curve' of abilities. Let's assume that our population of Boys and Girls is like this.
Lets also assume that the girls are just as effective in the workforce as boys.
Then let's say that our top performers are the kind who will test in about the 85th percentile (15% below perfect) and our bottom peformers will are 15% above the bottom - the 15th percentile. The middle two tiers we will make 65% and 35% - Just 15% on either side of the 50% average.
G(85%) B(85%)
G(65%) B(65%)
G(35%) B(35%)
G(15%) B(15%)
Now, we all know that there are only a few 'top jobs'. Affirmative Action for Women would mean that half of those jobs go to women. Let's say that half of our graduates can nail these jobs.
G(85%) B(85%)
G(65%) B(65%) Working at Top Job
-----------------------
G(35%) B(35%) Didn't get a Top Job
G(15%) B(15%)
Note that the full top job workforce contributes 300 percentile points to their employers.
Now, imagine that our top performers age - everyone does - and most women at some point decide to have children. What does this do to the equation? Well, obviously these women leave the workforce for some period of time. In the interim, their male ex-co-workers have to take up some of the slack. Additionally, the top jobs must be filled with other women to maintain the 50% quota:
G(35%) B(85%)
G(15%) B(65%) Working at Top Job
-----------------------
B(35%) Didn't get a Top Job
B(15%)
-----------------------
G(85%) Home with kids
G(65%)
Note that the full top job workforce now contributes 200 percentile points to their employers.
So, our average Girl-employee has a skill level in the 25th percentile,
-they contribute a total of 50 skill points.
Our average Boy-employee has a skill level in the 75th percentile, .
-they contribute a total of 150 skill points.
So with enforced full equality, effectively a man has to be three times (300%) as skillful, work three times as hard as a woman to compete for the same job.
If the corporate that has the top jobs actually requires those 300 percentile-based skill points to get the work done, then the men in the top jobs have to come up with, in addition to their current 150 points, an additional 100 points to make the corporate whole. That would bring the men's average output to 125%.
So to keep the corporates going, the men on the job have to put out an average performance that is five times (125%/25%) that of the women on the job. One might try and distribute some of this to the new women on the job, but remember, they are trainees, and have less skill to start with. Demanding an extra 25% from a worker who is starting at an average 25th percentile, and who is new on the job is just not going to make up the shortfall.
But perhaps you say 'well, eventually the women who left the workforce return.' Most of them don't, not until their kids are a few years into school, and when they do they generally do not choose jobs that are at the 'top firms', instead choosing jobs that are closer to home, require less hours, and the like.
The real losers are the men, who want to work, but can't compete for jobs that are slated for women. Every bit as skillful, or more skillful than the women who pick up those jobs, no, ENTITLEMENTS, these men sit on the sidelines, perhaps work retail, and learn how to ask if their clients would 'like fries with that'.
Also losers are those men who have the jobs, who have to work 500% as hard as their female counterparts. They never see their families, - if they can afford the time to build families.
As all of this sounds frighteningly familiar to me, let me add the next piece. Imagine one of the men has a family. Well, his wife gets tired of his not being around at all, and he finds himself divorced. Windfall for the wife, for she now gets half of his output from his job where he is putting in that 500% effort to make up the slack.
Of course he can't quit, he is now locked into the rat race, with the full weight of the US Government forcing him to continue slaving at his 500% effort job until he dies.
(A voluntary reduction in income is no grounds to reduce alimony or child support.)
- And his passing falls suprisingly at an age that for no apparent reason, is much younger on average than the age at which women die.
Gee, wonder why.
(All of this is assuming he doesn't just commit suicide.)
How very, very fair.
Simulposted on MIsForMalevolent
Imagine eight young people graduate, four girls and four boys.
G B
G B
G B
G B
Reasonably, their skill levels are different. Statistics on the variability of people's intelligence are available on the web, and most people understand that there is a 'bell curve' of abilities. Let's assume that our population of Boys and Girls is like this.
Lets also assume that the girls are just as effective in the workforce as boys.
Then let's say that our top performers are the kind who will test in about the 85th percentile (15% below perfect) and our bottom peformers will are 15% above the bottom - the 15th percentile. The middle two tiers we will make 65% and 35% - Just 15% on either side of the 50% average.
G(85%) B(85%)
G(65%) B(65%)
G(35%) B(35%)
G(15%) B(15%)
Now, we all know that there are only a few 'top jobs'. Affirmative Action for Women would mean that half of those jobs go to women. Let's say that half of our graduates can nail these jobs.
G(85%) B(85%)
G(65%) B(65%) Working at Top Job
-----------------------
G(35%) B(35%) Didn't get a Top Job
G(15%) B(15%)
Note that the full top job workforce contributes 300 percentile points to their employers.
Now, imagine that our top performers age - everyone does - and most women at some point decide to have children. What does this do to the equation? Well, obviously these women leave the workforce for some period of time. In the interim, their male ex-co-workers have to take up some of the slack. Additionally, the top jobs must be filled with other women to maintain the 50% quota:
G(35%) B(85%)
G(15%) B(65%) Working at Top Job
-----------------------
B(35%) Didn't get a Top Job
B(15%)
-----------------------
G(85%) Home with kids
G(65%)
Note that the full top job workforce now contributes 200 percentile points to their employers.
So, our average Girl-employee has a skill level in the 25th percentile,
-they contribute a total of 50 skill points.
Our average Boy-employee has a skill level in the 75th percentile, .
-they contribute a total of 150 skill points.
So with enforced full equality, effectively a man has to be three times (300%) as skillful, work three times as hard as a woman to compete for the same job.
If the corporate that has the top jobs actually requires those 300 percentile-based skill points to get the work done, then the men in the top jobs have to come up with, in addition to their current 150 points, an additional 100 points to make the corporate whole. That would bring the men's average output to 125%.
So to keep the corporates going, the men on the job have to put out an average performance that is five times (125%/25%) that of the women on the job. One might try and distribute some of this to the new women on the job, but remember, they are trainees, and have less skill to start with. Demanding an extra 25% from a worker who is starting at an average 25th percentile, and who is new on the job is just not going to make up the shortfall.
But perhaps you say 'well, eventually the women who left the workforce return.' Most of them don't, not until their kids are a few years into school, and when they do they generally do not choose jobs that are at the 'top firms', instead choosing jobs that are closer to home, require less hours, and the like.
The real losers are the men, who want to work, but can't compete for jobs that are slated for women. Every bit as skillful, or more skillful than the women who pick up those jobs, no, ENTITLEMENTS, these men sit on the sidelines, perhaps work retail, and learn how to ask if their clients would 'like fries with that'.
Also losers are those men who have the jobs, who have to work 500% as hard as their female counterparts. They never see their families, - if they can afford the time to build families.
As all of this sounds frighteningly familiar to me, let me add the next piece. Imagine one of the men has a family. Well, his wife gets tired of his not being around at all, and he finds himself divorced. Windfall for the wife, for she now gets half of his output from his job where he is putting in that 500% effort to make up the slack.
Of course he can't quit, he is now locked into the rat race, with the full weight of the US Government forcing him to continue slaving at his 500% effort job until he dies.
(A voluntary reduction in income is no grounds to reduce alimony or child support.)
- And his passing falls suprisingly at an age that for no apparent reason, is much younger on average than the age at which women die.
Gee, wonder why.
(All of this is assuming he doesn't just commit suicide.)
How very, very fair.
Simulposted on MIsForMalevolent
posted by MisAnDrope at 9:03 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Main