It is actually incredible how many hiring quotas there are in many (perhaps even most) western countries, even though at the same time discrimination and preferential treatment in hiring is very explicitly illegal (and in many such countries outright unconstitutional). If you live in a western country, chances are that if you dig enough you'll find all kinds of companies, businesses, institutions (both private and governmental) etc. openly engaging in hiring quotas. Not just under the hood hush-hush let's-keep-it-on-the-downlow, but as an open stated practice, with numbers and goals published every year or so.
And, somehow, they don't get sued because of illegal discrimination in hiring, perhaps because of contrived legal loopholes or because the government outright seems to just not care.
Anyway, putting all that aside, what is the justification for these hiring quotas, eg. gender-based hiring quotas? What is the underlying doctrine and belief system that justifies them, in the mind of leftists (and most left-leaning people who have been convinced of these leftist policies thanks to decades of social engineering)?
The underlying notion is that all people are completely equal and there's absolutely no differences between them, especially not in terms of eg. sex. Every woman is exactly as capable at every single job and task as every man, equally competent, equally qualified. Anything a man can do, a woman can also do equally well.
Thus, if there's a great gender disparity in a particular job, or particular positions in a company or institution, the only possible explanation for this is discrimination in hiring. If some job consists of 90% male workers, the only explanation for this is that the people in the company are making hiring decisions based on discriminatory prejudice, and nothing else.
They argue that even though such discrimination is illegal, it's rarely punished by law because it's so hard to prove, the companies are resorting to all kinds of excuses, trickery and loopholes to avoid being investigated, the system is corrupt, and yada yada yada.
Thus, it only makes sense to "balance out" this outrageous hiring discrimination by forcing the companies to hire equally. Or, even, to hire more women than men (or whichever "minority group" is being discussed), to compensate for past inequalities. Since they can't be prosecuted for discrimination (for some unspecified reason), they have to be forced to not do the discrimination.
In fact, many leftists argue, it's actually a benefit to those companies because they will be getting even higher quality employees because they won't be discriminating against competent workers because of their sex or other characteristics! So it's a win-win for everybody!
Too bad that it's all complete bullshit.
For starters, in this day and age the vast, vast majority of modern companies and institutions do not discriminate against anybody for their external characteristics. By far and large if there's an imbalance in some inconsequential physical characteristic, it's because there's such an imbalance in qualified applicants in the first place.
Perhaps no better example of this was when the people running Oculus (afterwards renamed Reality Labs) were asked why they weren't hiring more women, their candid honest response was, paraphrasing, "we'd love to hire more women, it's just that none are applying for the job!" It's hard to hire people who aren't even applying.
Imagine if in the US there was a system where eg. Oculus was forced to have 50% of their staff be women. They would quite literally have to make ghost hires, just hire random women who do absolutely nothing for the company (other than get hefty salaries for sitting at home doing nothing), just to fill the forced quota.
Secondly, this entire idea that everybody is completely equal to everybody else, and more particularly that there are literally zero differences between men and women, had been demonstrated time and again to be patently false.
There are, of course, some individual women who have very "masculine" interests and knowledge (eg. about technology) and some individual men who have very "feminine" interests and knowledge, but on average what "ticks" men and women is quite different. On average men are more interested in all things technological, and women are more interested in people and social relationships. No amount of screeching and threats is going to change that fact.
And because of these different interests, it just so happens to be that there are more men interested in, studying and practicing tech jobs and other similar endeavors.
One study showed that the freer that people are to choose their own careers and their own jobs, without pressure (ie. not being desperate to find any job they can get because of poverty), the larger the disparities between the sexes. In poorer countries where people will take any job they are offered in order to survive the sex disparity is very small. In rich countries where people are free to leisurely choose whichever career path they want, and to just apply for the jobs they are interested in, sex disparities become very pronounced. Women are just not seeking the same jobs as men, on average.
The fact is that hiring quotas only lower the average competency of the workforce and leadership in companies. Less qualified people will be hired and promoted, just because of forced quotas. And, on average, job satisfaction is reduced because people will be doing jobs they aren't all that interested in (only having taken them because of social engineering, not because they were naturally inclined to choose that career path.)
Comments
Post a Comment