politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » James Chapman’s Democrats notion is a doomed distraction

ThreeQuidder said:

viewcode said:

another_richard said:

viewcode said:

another_richard said:

Its a matter of faith among some Remainers that everyone in Britain is now poorer. Reality is not allowed to intrude and no exceptions are tolerated.

And there was me thinking you wanted a civilized conversation. Silly me.

A little advice then - lecturing people about their financial situation when you don't know any of their details would not be regarded as civilised among the people I know.

So yes, silly you.

And now I have some work to do.

Fair enough, and in future I will add caveats like "YMMV" and "...on average...". But your response ("Its a matter of faith among some Remainers that everyone in Britain is now poorer. Reality is not allowed to intrude and no exceptions are tolerated.") was unnecessarily rude and made unwarranted assumptions about me.

It's true. It is an article of faith amongst some people who voted Remain. Just look at MSmithson on this thread.

CarlottaVance said:

viewcode said:

@CarlottaVance

I forgot to thank you about your link the other day about David Davis's letter to Parliament, which I read with much interest. I'll refrain from reading the US culture war stuff (like PlatoSaid's similar posts they're only useful during a US election) but please keep up the Westminster/Whitehall stuff.

You're welcome! I thought the news about the EU stripping UK citizens of voting rights - unlike the UK would have caused some anguish among remainers - but evidently not!

felix said:

I voted remain but I think those who seem to wish to deny the will of the people are nearer to being 'jihadists' [- a term which is highly pejorative, somewhat hysterical and one I'd prefer, in the interests of good taste, not to use] than those who voted leave.

felix said:

viewcode said:

GeoffM said:

"Rights" is a loaded term and implies something fundamental and profound like free speech or self defence. These are not "rights" in any deep sense. They are no more than abilities or bureaucratic concessions.

Whether you would describe them as rights or something else is a fair discussion, but not to the fact that you have them now and soon you will not.

GeoffM said:

I have actively campaigned for decades against these paperwork gimmicks. I want to get rid of them.

That's your decision and consistent with your previous stance, but my point was relating to things that will be lost.

GeoffM said:

You use the word "lose" but that implies that I want to keep these things ...

No, it implies that you have them now and you will not have them in future. If there is a neutral term you would like me to use instead of "lose" please inform me of it, because I confess I'm stuck.

You're stuck because you are only looking at one side of the argument and ignoring the rights gained. On balance I wanted to stay in the EU but like many who voted thus I was only too aware of it's failings.

felix said:

CarlottaVance said:

https://twitter.com/Chrisitv/status/896320504994377728

Sadly it looks to be heading that way finally - it is already above it by some way for many tourists.

another_richard said:

MikeSmithson said:

TonyE said:

MikeSmithson said:

Casino_Royale said:

David is spot on in his assessment.

My sense is that Chapman is both full of hot air - and not as bright or insightful as he thinks he is - and was encouraged to unleash himself and grab the airwaves by George Osborne.

But, aside from boosting the morale of ultra-Remainers and providing them with entertainment, nothing will come of it and it will be quickly overtaken by events.

What qualifications do you have to sit in judgement over the "brightness" of Chapman?

As to forecasting events perhaps we could look at some of the comments that came from you ahead of 2200 in June 8th.

Probably his twitter feed (which provides ample evidence) and his lack of judgement in posting a naked photo of himself to his instagram feed.

ydoethur said:

MikeSmithson said:

Forget the third party part of the Shipman narrative and focus on what he has been saying about the government total lack of preparedness by TMay when she invoked A50. That is the reason why Shipman remains dangerous

Do you mean Chapman? Or is there some other twitterati called Shipman helping him along?

So you think TMay was right to trigger A50 when she had no plan at all over the intricacies involved?

The two guilty people of this whole saga are Cameron for agreeing to the referendum and TMay. They are the ones should be blamed for making us all poorer and taking away some of our freedoms.

They've not made me poorer.

I'm much better off that I was 18 months ago and so are probably most other people with a defined contributions pension plan.

I'm not aware of these freedoms you say I've lost either.

GeoffM said:

williamglenn said:

GeoffM said:

Two sides of the same great coin.

Our national leaders will now have real power again to make changes. And real responsibility to deliver solutions now that the sea-anchor of the EU has been cut away - which was both their political restraint and sometimes their handy excuse.

We as individuals now have regained real power to vote in and vote out national leaders who can actually make those changes. For the first time in decades we will be able to vote for true unfettered alternatives and we can kick the people running the show out if they don't perform.

We've regained democracy.

Power you say? Are there any specific examples we might look out for in the course of the Brexit negotiations that indicate the balance of such power?

Yes

CarlottaVance said:

williamglenn said:

CarlottaVance said:

williamglenn said:

CarlottaVance said:

Sean_F said:

Barnesian said:

ThreeQuidder said:

rural_voter said:

MPs need to tell voters to f*** off.

And that's what we call democracy?

Democracy is not a god to be worshiped. Look at the US variant of democracy and its consequence. Look at the UK with its disproportionate voting system that disenfranchises the majority of voters.

Referenda are fatally flawed because people vote to have their cake and eat it too - lower taxes and higher public services for instance - and can be easily emotionally swayed at the point of voting by wealthy media owners.

Democracy is a tool that has evolved to avoid bloodshed on the transfer of power. For that it is useful. But it is not the only tool. Power usually transfers at the top of large companies without bloodshed and without democracy. The same in China.

Democracy is a false god. It is a mere tool among many.

Democracy facilitates the free flow of ideas, and enables rulers to keep in touch with the grievances of the public. It gives people a stake in the system. It's not perfect, but it tends to deliver better outcomes than the alternative.

RCS1000 pointed out a great comment from an eminent physicist before the referendum on why he was voting 'Leave' - basically the UK has evolved reasonably efficient 'error correction' systems - from parliamentary democracy to the judiciary & common law - so when inevitably the ship of state veers off course it is fairly quickly corrected - he believes the EU does not have these systems.

Right now the UK looks much more like a political pressure cooker that could blow at any moment than the EU does.

What do you see as the Eu's 'error correction' systems?

Power is inherently distributed by the very nature of the EU, so there is never a single point of political failure. In contrast the UK is an extreme example of a top-down union.

So in other words, if 'no one is to blame' 'nothing can go wrong'?

GeoffM said:

PClipp said:

felix said:

viewcode said:

GeoffM said:

"Rights" is a loaded term and implies something fundamental and profound like free speech or self defence. These are not "rights" in any deep sense. They are no more than abilities or bureaucratic concessions.

Whether you would describe them as rights or something else is a fair discussion, but not to the fact that you have them now and soon you will not.

GeoffM said:

I have actively campaigned for decades against these paperwork gimmicks. I want to get rid of them.

That's your decision and consistent with your previous stance, but my point was relating to things that will be lost.

GeoffM said:

You use the word "lose" but that implies that I want to keep these things ...

No, it implies that you have them now and you will not have them in future. If there is a neutral term you would like me to use instead of "lose" please inform me of it, because I confess I'm stuck.

You're stuck because you are only looking at one side of the argument and ignoring the rights gained. On balance I wanted to stay in the EU but like many who voted thus I was only too aware of it's failings.

But what rights have we gained? Only to put more power in the hands of our national leaders (now Tories, later Socialists) so that they can play ducks and drakes with the economy, the environment and society in general. What have we - the general public who actually live here - actually gained?

Two sides of the same great coin.

Our national leaders will now have real power again to make changes. And real responsibility to deliver solutions now that the sea-anchor of the EU has been cut away - which was both their political restraint and sometimes their handy excuse.

We as individuals now have regained real power to vote in and vote out national leaders who can actually make those changes. For the first time in decades we will be able to vote for true unfettered alternatives and we can kick the people running the show out if they don't perform.

We've regained democracy.

Recidivist said:

The EU is democratic, so we haven't regained it. We've had it all along.

malcolmg said:

GeoffM said:

PClipp said:

felix said:

viewcode said:

GeoffM said:

"Rights" is a loaded term and implies something fundamental and profound like free speech or self defence. These are not "rights" in any deep sense. They are no more than abilities or bureaucratic concessions.

Whether you would describe them as rights or something else is a fair discussion, but not to the fact that you have them now and soon you will not.

GeoffM said:

I have actively campaigned for decades against these paperwork gimmicks. I want to get rid of them.

That's your decision and consistent with your previous stance, but my point was relating to things that will be lost.

GeoffM said:

You use the word "lose" but that implies that I want to keep these things ...

No, it implies that you have them now and you will not have them in future. If there is a neutral term you would like me to use instead of "lose" please inform me of it, because I confess I'm stuck.

You're stuck because you are only looking at one side of the argument and ignoring the rights gained. On balance I wanted to stay in the EU but like many who voted thus I was only too aware of it's failings.

But what rights have we gained? Only to put more power in the hands of our national leaders (now Tories, later Socialists) so that they can play ducks and drakes with the economy, the environment and society in general. What have we - the general public who actually live here - actually gained?

Two sides of the same great coin.

Our national leaders will now have real power again to make changes. And real responsibility to deliver solutions now that the sea-anchor of the EU has been cut away - which was both their political restraint and sometimes their handy excuse.

We as individuals now have regained real power to vote in and vote out national leaders who can actually make those changes. For the first time in decades we will be able to vote for true unfettered alternatives and we can kick the people running the show out if they don't perform.

We've regained democracy.

Geoff , I have to say that is fantasy bollox of the first order. We will get the same halfwits given most of the voting public are half witted sheep who vote based on what they see or hear on TV / bent newspapers. No intelligent person could possibly believe we will be better off, apart from the usual elite at the trough.

viewcode said:

viewcode said:

viewcode said:

@another_richard

PART 1: DID YOU GET RICHER OR POORER?

You got poorer. The trick is the fall in the value of the pound. It's not the number of pounds you have, it's the number of things you can buy with them. In the 70's Conservatives railed against "money illusion": the concept that people were fooled by an increase in their nominal wealth (the amount of pounds they have) masking a drop in their actual wealth (the things you can buy with them). 21st century low inflation has made us forget that lesson, to our detriment.

PART 2: TEMPORARY OR PERMANENTLY?

There is an ongoing argument between me and Philip Thompson of this parish, which usually ends with me quoting GBP/USD back to 2000. He represents the idea that the fall in the pound is like the 1992 ERM exit and will be temporary as industry expands to take advantage of export opportunities. I represent the idea that it is like the 1967 devaluation and will be permanent, causing inflation to work its way thru the system over the next five-ten years as industry fails to pick up. I do not know which of us are right as it is too early to tell, but I am not sanguine.

PART 3: RIGHTS AND THE LOSING OF THEM

You currently have the right to work in 27 other countries and operate under the protection of European legal protections (the ECHR, the ECJ and other bobbins beginning with E). Post Brexit you will not have those rights. Also if the Times is correct, the Government would like to remove the right to sue the Government, which would have shocked me had I been innocent to believe in its goodness.

Whether you consider those rights to be valuable is a value judgement I leave to you. But whether you will lose them is not. And currently it appears that you will.

viewcode said:

welshowl said:

I will go further and state that by far the best thing that can happen to me personally from an economic perspective is a rise in interest rates, which will not come in a sustained fashion till we can generate some sustained inflation.

Parenthetically, what would you think of high(ish) inflation and no rise in interest rates? I wouldn't put it past Carney to pull a fast one.

Alanbrooke said:

JosiasJessop said:

CarlottaVance said:

FrancisUrquhart said:

The google engineer that got fired is another worrying straw in the wind...

https://www.wsj.com/articles/why-i-was-fired-by-google-1502481290

He seems quite an odd dude, but then lots of people in tech are. The point is he wrote a discussion paper with citations to peer reviewed academic work, which then somebody stripped of the citations / edited and leaked to make it appear like he was simply ranting against diversity. Google higher ups have seen the original document and decided that firing him is the right course of action.

Its worth reading the original memo - its carefully written - he repeatedly makes the point that his comments are about populations and not individuals and any differences between populations might be small while differences between individuals can be much larger.

I have to disagree with this. The memo is crass and stupid.

Using the excuse of 'populations' and 'individuals' allows often-false generalisations to be used to discriminate.

My experience with women in engineering has been uniformly positive (and I'm not just saying that because I married one).

In fact, I'd go further: the female engineers I know are probably better on average than their male counterparts. The reason may be that they've had to fight more to get where they are, and that the struggle either knocks out the poorer ones, or helps them raise their game.

This leads to a question of why there are not more female managers. I'd like to say this is changing over time, but sadly IME it is not (at least at the mid-levels of SMEs I know of).

Children and child raising has to be an important aspect, although one that may take lesser importance with increased paternity leave.

Google has handled this badly, though: better for the company to produce a rebuttal of *why* they think he's wrong. AFAIAA they have not, and that's poor.

PC jocks are the new Godbotherers

JosiasJessop said:

Alanbrooke said:

JosiasJessop said:

CarlottaVance said:

FrancisUrquhart said:

The google engineer that got fired is another worrying straw in the wind...

https://www.wsj.com/articles/why-i-was-fired-by-google-1502481290

He seems quite an odd dude, but then lots of people in tech are. The point is he wrote a discussion paper with citations to peer reviewed academic work, which then somebody stripped of the citations / edited and leaked to make it appear like he was simply ranting against diversity. Google higher ups have seen the original document and decided that firing him is the right course of action.

Its worth reading the original memo - its carefully written - he repeatedly makes the point that his comments are about populations and not individuals and any differences between populations might be small while differences between individuals can be much larger.

I have to disagree with this. The memo is crass and stupid.

Using the excuse of 'populations' and 'individuals' allows often-false generalisations to be used to discriminate.

My experience with women in engineering has been uniformly positive (and I'm not just saying that because I married one).

In fact, I'd go further: the female engineers I know are probably better on average than their male counterparts. The reason may be that they've had to fight more to get where they are, and that the struggle either knocks out the poorer ones, or helps them raise their game.

This leads to a question of why there are not more female managers. I'd like to say this is changing over time, but sadly IME it is not (at least at the mid-levels of SMEs I know of).

Children and child raising has to be an important aspect, although one that may take lesser importance with increased paternity leave.

Google has handled this badly, though: better for the company to produce a rebuttal of *why* they think he's wrong. AFAIAA they have not, and that's poor.

PC jocks are the new Godbotherers

It's not PC. It's saying that the skills and capabilities of roughly half of the population is not being adequately utilised for b/s reasons.

I don't see women (or Indians, or Romanans, or any other grouping) as rivals for jobs (*). If I'm good enough, I'll find work. If not, I'll have to try to upskill. But more than that: one of those women, or Indians, or Romanians might start a company that employs me and scores of others.

(*) I'm not currently in the market.

welshowl said:

viewcode said:

welshowl said:

I will go further and state that by far the best thing that can happen to me personally from an economic perspective is a rise in interest rates, which will not come in a sustained fashion till we can generate some sustained inflation.

Parenthetically, what would you think of high(ish) inflation and no rise in interest rates? I wouldn't put it past Carney to pull a fast one.

4-5%?

On that basis provided Sterling drifted down to account for (say) inflation amongst our competitors in Euroland USA etc of 2%ish I 'd be agnostic to positive. Of course 4/5% inflation would soon start eating into Govt debt and be bad for bond holders so gilt yields might rise anyway (v good!). It may I guess help erode real house prices (v good overall), but again a rise in rates would help curtail property prices better.

I think mega low rates have biblically mispriced property and bonds and are at the heart of both the accommodation crisis ( though importing 250k plus people a year doesn't help with construction rates so far behind) and the pensions crisis. Tata, BHS, universities- you'd not have heard about any of them without sustained crazy interest rates.

Mortimer said:

viewcode said:

welshowl said:

I will go further and state that by far the best thing that can happen to me personally from an economic perspective is a rise in interest rates, which will not come in a sustained fashion till we can generate some sustained inflation.

Parenthetically, what would you think of high(ish) inflation and no rise in interest rates? I wouldn't put it past Carney to pull a fast one.

To be frank, this is more of a likelihood than increased interest rates, in my mind. Have you seen the figures on mortgage defaults? And how many know nothing else than rates in the floor.

The days of living off interest rates are over - there is too much money sloshing around (the result of mass market pensions) looking for a return. Interest rates on the floor is the new normal.

viewcode said:

Charles said:

The right to work in other countries is a matter of a treaty between governments. We have instructed the government to terminate the treaty, so the benefits of those treaties fall by the wayside. That was the choice the people made: it is not as if there has been some inalienable right that has been stripped from us.

Explaining to me why the right has been lost does not change the fact that the right was lost. In a discussion of rights that were lost, it is legitimate for me to point out that a right which is currently had and will in future not be had, will be a right that is lost.

So far discussion has ranged from whether the right is a right, or freedom, or even a "right", and whether the process of "having a thing followed by not having a thing" can be described using the word "lost". Although I delight in pedantry I can't help thinking that this semantic discussion does not change the fact that the right which is had will be lost.

Mortimer said:

welshowl said:

viewcode said:

welshowl said:

I will go further and state that by far the best thing that can happen to me personally from an economic perspective is a rise in interest rates, which will not come in a sustained fashion till we can generate some sustained inflation.

Parenthetically, what would you think of high(ish) inflation and no rise in interest rates? I wouldn't put it past Carney to pull a fast one.

4-5%?

On that basis provided Sterling drifted down to account for (say) inflation amongst our competitors in Euroland USA etc of 2%ish I 'd be agnostic to positive. Of course 4/5% inflation would soon start eating into Govt debt and be bad for bond holders so gilt yields might rise anyway (v good!). It may I guess help erode real house prices (v good overall), but again a rise in rates would help curtail property prices better.

I think mega low rates have biblically mispriced property and bonds and are at the heart of both the accommodation crisis ( though importing 250k plus people a year doesn't help with construction rates so far behind) and the pensions crisis. Tata, BHS, universities- you'd not have heard about any of them without sustained crazy interest rates.

Flip the effect on pensions on its head; they have had a huge effect on the money supply in the world - the crazy low interest rates are as a result of the trillions of dollars looking for a return.

Pensions relying upon interest rates was poor design - the growth required for sustained pensions was always going to be hard to achieve when there was so much money around.

Mortimer said:

viewcode said:

Mortimer said:

viewcode said:

welshowl said:

I will go further and state that by far the best thing that can happen to me personally from an economic perspective is a rise in interest rates, which will not come in a sustained fashion till we can generate some sustained inflation.

Parenthetically, what would you think of high(ish) inflation and no rise in interest rates? I wouldn't put it past Carney to pull a fast one.

To be frank, this is more of a likelihood than increased interest rates, in my mind. Have you seen the figures on mortgage defaults? And how many know nothing else than rates in the floor.

The days of living off interest rates are over - there is too much money sloshing around (the result of mass market pensions) looking for a return. Interest rates on the floor is the new normal.

You might be right

I did vote leave, remember.....

Mortimer said:

viewcode said:

Charles said:

The right to work in other countries is a matter of a treaty between governments. We have instructed the government to terminate the treaty, so the benefits of those treaties fall by the wayside. That was the choice the people made: it is not as if there has been some inalienable right that has been stripped from us.

Explaining to me why the right has been lost does not change the fact that the right was lost. In a discussion of rights that were lost, it is legitimate for me to point out that a right which is currently had and will in future not be had, will be a right that is lost.

So far discussion has ranged from whether the right is a right, or freedom, or even a "right", and whether the process of "having a thing followed by not having a thing" can be described using the word "lost". Although I delight in pedantry I can't help thinking that this semantic discussion does not change the fact that the right which is had will be lost.

Rights change, is the point - there are very few inalienable rights.

I think you'll find the right to live anywhere within Europe is not a fundamental, inalienable right.

Philip_Thompson said:

CarlottaVance said:

JosiasJessop said:

CarlottaVance said:

FrancisUrquhart said:

The google engineer that got fired is another worrying straw in the wind...

https://www.wsj.com/articles/why-i-was-fired-by-google-1502481290

He seems quite an odd dude, but then lots of people in tech are. The point is he wrote a discussion paper with citations to peer reviewed academic work, which then somebody stripped of the citations / edited and leaked to make it appear like he was simply ranting against diversity. Google higher ups have seen the original document and decided that firing him is the right course of action.

Its worth reading the original memo - its carefully written - he repeatedly makes the point that his comments are about populations and not individuals and any differences between populations might be small while differences between individuals can be much larger.

The memo is crass and stupid..

That may well be the case.

If it is, is that suitable grounds for termination of employment?

In America yes.

CarlottaVance said:

JosiasJessop said:

CarlottaVance said:

FrancisUrquhart said:

The google engineer that got fired is another worrying straw in the wind...

https://www.wsj.com/articles/why-i-was-fired-by-google-1502481290

He seems quite an odd dude, but then lots of people in tech are. The point is he wrote a discussion paper with citations to peer reviewed academic work, which then somebody stripped of the citations / edited and leaked to make it appear like he was simply ranting against diversity. Google higher ups have seen the original document and decided that firing him is the right course of action.

Its worth reading the original memo - its carefully written - he repeatedly makes the point that his comments are about populations and not individuals and any differences between populations might be small while differences between individuals can be much larger.

The memo is crass and stupid..

That may well be the case.

If it is, is that suitable grounds for termination of employment?

JosiasJessop said:

CarlottaVance said:

JosiasJessop said:

CarlottaVance said:

FrancisUrquhart said:

The google engineer that got fired is another worrying straw in the wind...

https://www.wsj.com/articles/why-i-was-fired-by-google-1502481290

He seems quite an odd dude, but then lots of people in tech are. The point is he wrote a discussion paper with citations to peer reviewed academic work, which then somebody stripped of the citations / edited and leaked to make it appear like he was simply ranting against diversity. Google higher ups have seen the original document and decided that firing him is the right course of action.

Its worth reading the original memo - its carefully written - he repeatedly makes the point that his comments are about populations and not individuals and any differences between populations might be small while differences between individuals can be much larger.

The memo is crass and stupid..

That may well be the case.

If it is, is that suitable grounds for termination of employment?

Possibly: that may well depend on his terms of employment or contract with the company. Certainly, its release into the public arena could (has?) damaged Google's reputation.

But as I said below, Google hasn't handled this well, either. I'm guessing the totality of the story has yet to emerge ...

Charles said:

We don't know that it has been lost: it could be renegotiated as part of a new arrangement between governments.

I'm also questioning whether your use of the word "right" is helpful. You have a benefit - the ability to work in multiple countries - but not an inalienable right.

viewcode said:

Charles said:

We don't know that it has been lost: it could be renegotiated as part of a new arrangement between governments.

I'm also questioning whether your use of the word "right" is helpful. You have a benefit - the ability to work in multiple countries - but not an inalienable right.

The original discussion - many, many centuries ago now - was initiated by the OP who said he was unaware of rights that were lost. I listed some, one of which the right to live and work in other countries. Whether we refer to it as a "right", a "benefit", an "option" or whether we qualify it as "fundamental" or "inalienable"(?!) or even "elemental" is not germane to the point: namely that he currently has it and post-Brexit he will not.

As to your point that it might be regained: well, I hope so. But I fear it will be the same as Johnson's mooted freedom of movement between UK & Australia: allow people to come in but prevent me from going out. .

Charles said:

CarlottaVance said:

JosiasJessop said:

CarlottaVance said:

JosiasJessop said:

CarlottaVance said:

FrancisUrquhart said:

The google engineer that got fired is another worrying straw in the wind...

https://www.wsj.com/articles/why-i-was-fired-by-google-1502481290

He seems quite an odd dude, but then lots of people in tech are. The point is he wrote a discussion paper with citations to peer reviewed academic work, which then somebody stripped of the citations / edited and leaked to make it appear like he was simply ranting against diversity. Google higher ups have seen the original document and decided that firing him is the right course of action.

Its worth reading the original memo - its carefully written - he repeatedly makes the point that his comments are about populations and not individuals and any differences between populations might be small while differences between individuals can be much larger.

The memo is crass and stupid..

That may well be the case.

If it is, is that suitable grounds for termination of employment?

Possibly: that may well depend on his terms of employment or contract with the company. Certainly, its release into the public arena could (has?) damaged Google's reputation.

But as I said below, Google hasn't handled this well, either. I'm guessing the totality of the story has yet to emerge ...

If he was a Senior VP of HR then he would deserve sanction for releasing a memo that possibly didn't balance conflicting evidence.

As it is Google has proved his case - dissenting views will be punished.

Edit AFAIK the memo was released by the witch burners

From his shareholders perspectives, the CEO did the right thing. It's shitty, and if he was a good person he'll help the guy find a job elsewhere, but a company shouldn't be expected to stand up to a mob.

felix said:

CarlottaVance said:

https://twitter.com/Chrisitv/status/896320504994377728

Sadly it looks to be heading that way finally - it is already above it by some way for many tourists.

CarlottaVance said:

Charles said:

CarlottaVance said:

JosiasJessop said:

CarlottaVance said:

JosiasJessop said:

CarlottaVance said:

FrancisUrquhart said:

The google engineer that got fired is another worrying straw in the wind...

https://www.wsj.com/articles/why-i-was-fired-by-google-1502481290

He seems quite an odd dude, but then lots of people in tech are. The point is he wrote a discussion paper with citations to peer reviewed academic work, which then somebody stripped of the citations / edited and leaked to make it appear like he was simply ranting against diversity. Google higher ups have seen the original document and decided that firing him is the right course of action.

Its worth reading the original memo - its carefully written - he repeatedly makes the point that his comments are about populations and not individuals and any differences between populations might be small while differences between individuals can be much larger.

The memo is crass and stupid..

That may well be the case.

If it is, is that suitable grounds for termination of employment?

Possibly: that may well depend on his terms of employment or contract with the company. Certainly, its release into the public arena could (has?) damaged Google's reputation.

But as I said below, Google hasn't handled this well, either. I'm guessing the totality of the story has yet to emerge ...

If he was a Senior VP of HR then he would deserve sanction for releasing a memo that possibly didn't balance conflicting evidence.

As it is Google has proved his case - dissenting views will be punished.

Edit AFAIK the memo was released by the witch burners

From his shareholders perspectives, the CEO did the right thing. It's shitty, and if he was a good person he'll help the guy find a job elsewhere, but a company shouldn't be expected to stand up to a mob.

It isn't the CEO's job to defend the (purported) values of the company?

(Snip)

williamglenn said:

Charles said:

The other big point no one focuses on is the trend for Eurozone countries to vote as a bloc.

If this developed then we would permanently be in a minority - the EU would effectively have suzerainty over the UK, albeit not sovereignty

Are we prohibited from joining the Euro?

JosiasJessop said:

CarlottaVance said:

Charles said:

CarlottaVance said:

JosiasJessop said:

CarlottaVance said:

JosiasJessop said:

CarlottaVance said:

FrancisUrquhart said:

The google engineer that got fired is another worrying straw in the wind...

https://www.wsj.com/articles/why-i-was-fired-by-google-1502481290

He seems quite an odd dude, but then lots of people in tech are. The point is he wrote a discussion paper with citations to peer reviewed academic work, which then somebody stripped of the citations / edited and leaked to make it appear like he was simply ranting against diversity. Google higher ups have seen the original document and decided that firing him is the right course of action.

Its worth reading the original memo - its carefully written - he repeatedly makes the point that his comments are about populations and not individuals and any differences between populations might be small while differences between individuals can be much larger.

The memo is crass and stupid..

That may well be the case.

If it is, is that suitable grounds for termination of employment?

Possibly: that may well depend on his terms of employment or contract with the company. Certainly, its release into the public arena could (has?) damaged Google's reputation.

But as I said below, Google hasn't handled this well, either. I'm guessing the totality of the story has yet to emerge ...

If he was a Senior VP of HR then he would deserve sanction for releasing a memo that possibly didn't balance conflicting evidence.

As it is Google has proved his case - dissenting views will be punished.

Edit AFAIK the memo was released by the witch burners

From his shareholders perspectives, the CEO did the right thing. It's shitty, and if he was a good person he'll help the guy find a job elsewhere, but a company shouldn't be expected to stand up to a mob.

It isn't the CEO's job to defend the (purported) values of the company?

(Snip)

his actions post-memo will hardly have helped.

DecrepitJohnL said:

felix said:

CarlottaVance said:

https://twitter.com/Chrisitv/status/896320504994377728

Sadly it looks to be heading that way finally - it is already above it by some way for many tourists.

What is sad about euro/sterling parity? More successful economies than ours have manipulated their currencies downwards (Germany and China, for instance) yet in Britain an overvalued currency is seen by politicians, press and public alike as a national virility symbol.

CarlottaVance said:

JosiasJessop said:

CarlottaVance said:

JosiasJessop said:

CarlottaVance said:

JosiasJessop said:

CarlottaVance said:

FrancisUrquhart said:

The google engineer that got fired is another worrying straw in the wind...

https://www.wsj.com/articles/why-i-was-fired-by-google-1502481290

He seems quite an odd dude, but then lots of people in tech are. The point is he wrote a discussion paper with citations to peer reviewed academic work, which then somebody stripped of the citations / edited and leaked to make it appear like he was simply ranting against diversity. Google higher ups have seen the original document and decided that firing him is the right course of action.

Its worth reading the original memo - its carefully written - he repeatedly makes the point that his comments are about populations and not individuals and any differences between populations might be small while differences between individuals can be much larger.

The memo is crass and stupid..

That may well be the case.

If it is, is that suitable grounds for termination of employment?

Possibly: that may well depend on his terms of employment or contract with the company. Certainly, its release into the public arena could (has?) damaged Google's reputation.

But as I said below, Google hasn't handled this well, either. I'm guessing the totality of the story has yet to emerge ...

If he was a Senior VP of HR then he would deserve sanction for releasing a memo that possibly didn't balance conflicting evidence.

As it is Google has proved his case - dissenting views will be punished.

Edit AFAIK the memo was released by the witch burners

Company reputation is not limited to senior positions, and he distributed it widely.

He says it had limited distribution and only within his work group where it excited little interest. It was a month after it was originally written that others distributed it widely and outside Google.

The fundamental question surely is "are men and women the same?" (In gross population terms)

He argues "no" and each population has different strengths and weaknesses. These are minor compared to individual differences, (so woman A can easily be a better leader (for example) than man , but bear examining in an organisation of tens of thousands.

CarlottaVance said:

JosiasJessop said:

CarlottaVance said:

JosiasJessop said:

CarlottaVance said:

JosiasJessop said:

CarlottaVance said:

FrancisUrquhart said:

The google engineer that got fired is another worrying straw in the wind...

https://www.wsj.com/articles/why-i-was-fired-by-google-1502481290

He seems quite an odd dude, but then lots of people in tech are. The point is he wrote a discussion paper with citations to peer reviewed academic work, which then somebody stripped of the citations / edited and leaked to make it appear like he was simply ranting against diversity. Google higher ups have seen the original document and decided that firing him is the right course of action.

Its worth reading the original memo - its carefully written - he repeatedly makes the point that his comments are about populations and not individuals and any differences between populations might be small while differences between individuals can be much larger.

The memo is crass and stupid..

That may well be the case.

If it is, is that suitable grounds for termination of employment?

Possibly: that may well depend on his terms of employment or contract with the company. Certainly, its release into the public arena could (has?) damaged Google's reputation.

But as I said below, Google hasn't handled this well, either. I'm guessing the totality of the story has yet to emerge ...

If he was a Senior VP of HR then he would deserve sanction for releasing a memo that possibly didn't balance conflicting evidence.

As it is Google has proved his case - dissenting views will be punished.

Edit AFAIK the memo was released by the witch burners

Company reputation is not limited to senior positions, and he distributed it widely.

He says it had limited distribution and only within his work group where it excited little interest. It was a month after it was originally written that others distributed it widely and outside Google.

The fundamental question surely is "are men and women the same?" (In gross population terms)

He argues "no" and each population has different strengths and weaknesses. These are minor compared to individual differences, (so woman A can easily be a better leader (for example) than man , but bear examining in an organisation of tens of thousands.

Do you agree, or disagree?

CarlottaVance said:

Nigelb said:

CarlottaVance said:

JosiasJessop said:

CarlottaVance said:

JosiasJessop said:

CarlottaVance said:

JosiasJessop said:

CarlottaVance said:

FrancisUrquhart said:

The google engineer that got fired is another worrying straw in the wind...

https://www.wsj.com/articles/why-i-was-fired-by-google-1502481290

He...ion.

Its worth reading the original memo - its carefully written - he repeatedly makes the point that his comments are about populations and not individuals and any differences between populations might be small while differences between individuals can be much larger.

The memo is crass and stupid..

That may well be the case.

If it is, is that suitable grounds for termination of employment?

Possibly: that may well depend on his terms of employment or contract with the company. Certainly, its release into the public arena could (has?) damaged Google's reputation.

But as I said below, Google hasn't handled this well, either. I'm guessing the totality of the story has yet to emerge ...

If he was a Senior VP of HR then he would deserve sanction for releasing a memo that possibly didn't balance conflicting evidence.

As it is Google has proved his case - dissenting views will be punished.

Edit AFAIK the memo was released by the witch burners

Company reputation is not limited to senior positions, and he distributed it widely.

He says it had limited distribution and only within his work group where it excited little interest. It was a month after it was originally written that others distributed it widely and outside Google.

The fundamental question surely is "are men and women the same?" (In gross population terms)

He argues "no" and each population has different strengths and weaknesses. These are minor compared to individual differences, (so woman A can easily be a better leader (for example) than man , but bear examining in an organisation of tens of thousands.

Nope, the fundamental question is why there is an 80/20 disparity between men and women in tech. His argument about 'minor population differences' is effectively self refuting.

So firing employees who advance theories is a solution?

williamglenn said:

Charles said:

williamglenn said:

Charles said:

The other big point no one focuses on is the trend for Eurozone countries to vote as a bloc.

If this developed then we would permanently be in a minority - the EU would effectively have suzerainty over the UK, albeit not sovereignty

Are we prohibited from joining the Euro?

Permanently unless we do something for which the UK population has, to date, shown no appetite.

You may not think it reasonable for CEOs to be expected to stand up to a mob, but political leaders certainly ought to be able to.

DecrepitJohnL said:

williamglenn said:

DecrepitJohnL said:

felix said:

CarlottaVance said:

https://twitter.com/Chrisitv/status/896320504994377728

Sadly it looks to be heading that way finally - it is already above it by some way for many tourists.

What is sad about euro/sterling parity? More successful economies than ours have manipulated their currencies downwards (Germany and China, for instance) yet in Britain an overvalued currency is seen by politicians, press and public alike as a national virility symbol.

Germany has manipulated its currency all the way down up from 3.85 to the pound in 1980, 2.77 to the pound at the time of the launch of the Euro in 1999 to an equivalent of only 2.16 to the pound today. If this is a race to the bottom, I know who my money's on.

Germany has locked in an artificially low rate by membership of the Euro. Greece, to take one example, has locked in too high a rate. If either or both countries were to exit the Euro tomorrow, we can judge which way their currencies would float.