As Amazon Grows In Seattle, Pay Equity For Women Declines 496
reifman writes Amazon's hiring so quickly in Seattle that it's on pace to employ 45,000 people or seven percent of the city. But, 75% of these hires are male. While Seattle women earned 86 cents per dollar earned by men in 2012, today, they make only 78 cents per dollar. In "Amageddon: Seattle's Increasingly Obvious Future", I review these and other surprising facts about Amazon's growing impact on the city: we're the fastest growing — now larger than Boston, we have the fastest rising rents, the fourth worst traffic, we're only twelfth in public transit, we're the fifth whitest and getting whiter, we're experiencing record levels of property crime and the amount of office space under construction has nearly doubled to 3.2 million square feet in the past year.
Here we go again (Score:5, Funny)
Re: Here we go again (Score:4, Insightful)
Equality of opputunity not outcome matters.
Also, correlation does not imply causation. Is amazon paying women less for same job?
Re: Here we go again (Score:4, Insightful)
"Also, correlation does not imply causation. Is amazon paying women less for same job?"
The REAL question that never seems to get an answer
Re: Here we go again (Score:5, Insightful)
Amazon attempts to pay each employee as little as possible on a per-employee basis. The job description only defines what the upper range of the pay will be but NOT the lower end. Experience, demand shifts in the labor market, education, internal connections at the company, and a bazillion other influences exist to determine pay. I'd suggest that there is a wide pay gap between men doing the same job too, and that we are getting a heavily curated view of what's happening. By illustrating the problem the way the article does it is like shooting a piece of paper and drawing the target around it and then claiming LOOK AT THE PROBLEM. It isn't a problem that has a solution in a market where salary can be negotiated.
Re: Here we go again (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
Didn't Microsoft just lay off thousands of people?
Re: (Score:3)
I do believe a while ago there was another article that went through here talking about just this issue. Specifically about women's ability to negotiate their salary. An employer is going to try to pay *anyone (regardless of gender or race) as little as possible. If the prospective employee is not going to fight for their salary then they are going to get the least the employer puts on the table.
Here's a loosely related article posted on Dice because hey... it's posted on Dice ;-)
http://news.dice.com/201 [dice.com]
Tech news vs. political news (Score:4, Interesting)
Spend a few days reading nothing but technology news [samizdata.net]. Then spend a few days reading nothing but political news. For the first few days you’ll see an exciting world of innovation and creativity where everything is getting better all the time. In the second period you’ll see a miserable world of cynicism and treachery where everything is falling apart. Please explain the difference.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
"Social justice warriors" and the people in media trying to push a particular narrative point of view.
Re: (Score:3)
Re:Here we go again (Score:5, Funny)
Previous story was about Barbie and sexism, this one is about pay equity. I think the next story should be about minorities in tech.
Maybe we'll find out Bill Cosby did a stint for Apple. That would wrap it all up nicely.
Re: (Score:2)
I think the next story should be about minorities in tech.
I wonder what the conclusion of such an article would be?
Re:Here we go again (Score:5, Insightful)
"I wonder what the conclusion of such an article would be?"
That this isn't a site for sociologists or experts in race or gender studies.
If we talked to sociolgists, race or gender study experts, they'd probably have a non-sensationalist, well researched and well reasoned approach to discussing sensitive issues. And they probably wouldn't be happy if people jumped on their communtiy forums and started talking about SATA drivers.
Re: (Score:2)
You don't know any sociologists do you?
This is there stock and trade. Controversy is good for their business.
Re: (Score:2)
He didn't do anything for Apple, but he did pimp the Texas Instruments TI-99. Close enough?
Re: (Score:3)
You people are idiots looking for an excuse to be outraged.
It's just data, and the question is 'why?'. No one is outraged.
Half the population makes less money then the other half, and looking at the data and trying to see if we can find parity is reasonable.
Why do you think we should ignore this issue?
Re:Here we go again (Score:5, Insightful)
If Women make less money than men, then businesses should hire the women first, since it would lower costs.
The problem is, it might be more expensive to hire women, because of other reasons. But we dare not speak of those other reasons, for political correctness reasons.
Re: (Score:3)
What other reasons? dumbass.
Strangely, among other reasons women are much more likely than men to require maternity leave. I have no idea what that stems from.
~Loyal
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
Welcome to LIFE 101. Humans have kids, if your business runs on such thin margins that you cant account for that, YOU HAVE NO BUSINESS HIRING EMPLOYEES, period. Humans have babies, it MUST be accounted for. If you are running your business without accounting for this, then you are a shitty human.
Thereby proving Archangel Michael's point about political correctness. Just to be clear, are you saying that it's much more acceptable for people to be unemployed than for employers to pay more for their more valua
Re:Here we go again (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3)
How about we start with the fact that your senior MALE engineer doesn't disappear for several months (with pay) in the middle of a big crunch so he can be a daddy.
I guess you don't know about our culture out here on the West Coast, but yes they do! Family Leave is not just for women. We don't write special rules for women here, we write rules for everybody, and men indeed have kids and take their family leave time. And then they come back, and are even more loyal workers because now they have to think about their kids and their job is more important to them.
It is just a total load of sexist partisan crap.
Re:Here we go again (Score:4, Insightful)
If these things didn't exist, a business would be foolish to NOT hire women, since they cost less than men on salary alone.
Businesses are NOT not hiring women. The practice of paying men (or breadwinners) more for the same job is a thing of the past.
If a man and a woman apply to the SAME job with the SAME qualifications then they get paid the SAME. There is actually a little
bit of data showing that a woman actually get paid MORE all else being the same. The problem is that there are far fewer women
that want certain type of jobs. You can attempt to change personal preferences but should we really care if people are freely
choosing their careers and some people chose careers that pay more while others choose careers that pay less?
Re:Here we go again (Score:4, Insightful)
It's more subtle than that. Better paying jobs are more likely to go to men, so a women with similar qualifications and experience is likely, on average, to earn less than a man. It's easy to fix too, just make the jobs more accessible to female candidates. Obviously you still hire the best candidate, it's not about favouritism.
For example, a lot of well paying jobs are found through networking. If most of your current employees are male and network with other males, you are less likely to get female candidates applying or head hunted. All you need to do to correct that is to make an effort to network with women, and maybe ask some of the women in your company to put the word out. It benefits you because you have a wider pool of talent to pick from. It's actually dumb not to do it.
There is also bias at the hiring stage that can be eliminated. Some managers don't want to hire women because they worry that they will go on maternity leave or quit completely if they get pregnant. That one is harder to deal with, but does again exclude good candidates and diversity from the company.
Re:Here we go again (Score:4, Insightful)
...And another law that the first person to criticize the term "SJW" is almost always a white male.
Go, my white knight brother! Relieve your white guilt by apologizing in the ghetto! Alleviate the pain of your oppressor privilege by carrying a sign in some march in Ferguson, Missouri! Go forth to a womyn's rights rally and stand beside a butch lesbian as a compatriot, so that you, my noble knight, might make up for the crippling misdeeds of your evil white male ancestors!
Re:Here we go again (Score:5, Funny)
Slashdot has become incredibly racist and sexist lately, I think it's time to go.
How will we know that you're gone? Could you check in now and again to remind us?
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Here we go again (Score:4, Insightful)
Yeah, because Slashdot hasn't been a libertarian hangout for the last 15 years or anything.
Re:Here we go again (Score:4, Funny)
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Funny thing about using a group's identity pejoratively...
If retards didn't exist, we wouldn't call them retards. And if we considered retards a good thing, we wouldn't use that word as an insult. Similarly, much as "retarded" replaced "idiot" and "moron", "SJW" itself replaced "PC", once that older term had become too commonplace.
If you manage to make the actual use of "SJW" gauche, you can expect to simply se
Re: (Score:3)
Disagreeing with the ideology of a particular group of women and men is NOT "attacking women." You don't get to label everyone who disagrees with your particular ideology as a misogynist just because you don't dig what they have to say.
Re: (Score:3)
Legalized drugs ... has consistently lead to property crimes (and often assaults) increasing several hundred percent in other countries/states/cities.
Citation? It's usually the other way around. You're right about the firearms though.
Re: (Score:3)
Citation on the "legalized drugs" causing a problem? It's not like weed was hard to get before, you just had to buy it from criminals and were a criminal yourself for doing so. Now that this is no longer true, people have less, not more, incentive to commit crimes.
Outlawed firearms: you don't live anywhere near WA, do you? The state rate of concealed carry is quite high, especially for a "blue" state. People raise a fuss about it sometimes, but overall there's still a good number of guns around.
Re: (Score:3)
It also has no-license-required open carry, which is actually better than a bunch of southern states. Oh, and concealed carry license doesn't cost $200.
I bet Amazon would love to hire more women. (Score:3, Insightful)
I bet Amazon has a lot of computer-programmer hires, and would love to hire more women and to pay them computer-programmer salaries to program computers. And I know that there are women programmers out there. I've seen and worked with several in my career. Like coders in general, some are incompetent, some are incredibly competent. The big difference is that not a single female programmer I've worked with was white, or even native to the United States.
Just my $0.03. Blame Computer Engineer Barbie if you'd like. :P
Re: (Score:2)
For the record: I've worked with a few white female computer programmers. One was competent (but a manly lumber dyke), the rest were air thieves.
Re:I bet Amazon would love to hire more women. (Score:4, Insightful)
" One was competent (but a manly lumber dyke), the rest were air thieves."
So you add a worthless antidote, use negative slang to describe them, and imply the more manly one is the better they are?
Nice way to stack up the microaggression right into misogyny AND homophobia.
Re: (Score:2)
Antidote for what? Some kind of poison, presumably, but I can't figure out what from context....
Or did you, in your semiliterate way, mean "anecdote"?
Here's my anecdote, by the by: My wife and I are both programmers, and she makes pretty much the same money I do (more right now - I was out of the workforce for a while dealing with cancer).
Re: (Score:2)
Maybe you're offended by the way he put it, but his point is valid. As far as 'anecdotes' go, what do you think all of these social (ahem) "science" theories are based on? A lot of fucking anecdotes that's what. A lot of "the facts don't support that claim" statements that are based on biased "meta-studies" that are in turn based on bullshit. The academics entrenched in our universities have created a vast framework that rivals Scientology, all of it *designed* to justify their own continued existence.
T
Re: (Score:2)
I bet Amazon has a lot of computer-programmer hires, and would love to hire more women and to pay them computer-programmer salaries to program computers...
I like to think that Amazon couldn't care whether its programmers are female, male, black, white, straight, gay, Democrat or Republican: in any sensible world, a company simply hires the best it can find. If few women are applying, or if women are discouraged by interviews with no opportunity for a bathroom break, that's only a problem for Amazon if it's struggling to fill positions.
The original article fails to pick up on the real risk to Seattle, though, which is economic. History suggests that individual
Bullshit Stats. (Score:5, Insightful)
Except that when you look at pay equity with relation to what role/job they pay, this feminist bullshit disappears.
When you look at the overall without understanding it at all.....it looks like we live in a sexist society because women choose more emotionally rewarding careers than financially rewarding.
Re: (Score:2)
Damn you for using logic and facts.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
You hit the mark with "children". If you compare childless women to men, the pay gap completely disappears. If sexism were the root cause of the pay gap, it seems like whether or not women had children wouldn't make a difference.
Children are a big distraction from a career if you happen to be the primary care-giver. Of course, women tend to fill that role more often than men. And obviously, childbirth is going to significantly impact a woman's career more than a man.
None of that matters, of course, sinc
Re:Bullshit Stats. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Bullshit Stats. (Score:5, Insightful)
That's right, and I wish I had mod points today. Unless the author can show that female techs in Seattle are making less than male techs in Seattle, this is not a story.
Re:Bullshit Stats. (Score:5, Informative)
In Seattle tech, the average pay for a man is:$89,400 for a women its: $79,000
Re:Bullshit Stats. (Score:5, Insightful)
Tech is not a job title and is far too broad to base any judgements on. Typically once you look under the covers study authors also engage in trickery to make it worse.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
When you look at the overall without understanding it at all.....it looks like we live in a sexist society because women choose more emotionally rewarding careers than financially rewarding.
Because... traditionally there is more social pressure on the husband to bring the money home. Perhaps this could play a small role in the equation, no?
Re:Bullshit Stats. (Score:5, Interesting)
I want pay equality with people who are better negotiators than me and get $10k more because they can argue the hiring manager into it.
There are many theories here, including job role, hours worked, and negotiation skill. It seems to me if I thought I could get 85% of the candidates I actually wanted by offering $73k as a start and negotiating, I would do that, unless I needed a higher outcome (95% etc.); but if I knew women were more likely to accept a low bid, I'd take more statistics. If I discovered I could land 85% of women applicants for the given job by offering $65k and negotiating, and 85% of the men by offering $78k and negotiating, I might offer men $78k and women $65k. It would meet my hiring goals.
Women are inherently poorer negotiators, which is why every society on earth is male-dominated. The dynamics differ after that point: in India and Saudi, a woman can be killed or brutalized or ostracized for getting snippy; while in America, men are terrified of strong-willed women, and so a woman can easily improve her place in society by training herself to be a stronger negotiator with techniques as simple as being fair, but firm. To Americans, a woman who is not easily intimidated is actively intimidating.
Even when you account for the effects of negotiated salaries, the only societal conclusions you can draw are that the problem lies elsewhere. If you want women to get equal pay for equal work, you should make sure women average equal negotiating skill. Even then, you may find that women are less concerned with money: if a woman is a powerful negotiator, but is exactly as satisfied with a $70k salary as a man is with a $75k salary, the woman will narrow the gap only that much. This is definitively not a problem: the woman is getting what she wants, and would only whine because someone else has *more*; the benchmark of "what other people have that I only care about because they have it" is not an admirable one, and any person who would be equally satisfied with the next person having less rather than themselves having more should be swiftly ignored.
Re: (Score:2)
Except negotiating on a person by person bases for the same work is stupid. Why should a great engineer be paid less because they aren't a social adept as someone else?
It's the same work.
Re: (Score:3)
Except negotiating on a person by person bases for the same work is stupid. Why should a great engineer be paid less because they aren't a social adept as someone else?
Because someone has to talk to customers.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Because person by person is how you hire people. I would think that the last thing we would want would be "take it or leave it" job offers. Look what it has done to cell phone contracts, EULAs, utility contracts, heck just about anything.
"take it or leave it" works just fine for shoes, hotels, electronic equipment and most everything else we exchange money for. The key is you need enough competition that "leave it" becomes a real, practical choice.
Re: (Score:2)
I can't find the study at the moment, if no one else finds it, I'll look when I get home.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
"women choose"
Fact not in evidence.
Re: (Score:2)
I had a job offer in Seattle that I turned down due to the cost of relocation, traffic, housing, etc. If I had taken the job, my spouse would have moved too and looked for work. She would not have looked for an engineering job, so yes, there would be pay inequality, but she would not need to deal with 2nd housing, etc. I suepect some of the pay inequality is spouses of engineers working at Microsoft or Boeing working the two income family positions to make the mortguage instead of full time homemaker. T
Re: (Score:3)
True, but how often do you hear people here complain about CEOs making millions? Either it's related to effort "He's golfing with vendors and reading trade magazines while I work my butt off 60+ hours a week" or results "I've created millions in revenue for them and after 20 years they lay me off and outsource my job to India." Does anybody tell you to STFU, take an MBA and become a CEO yourself? No. But if a nurse complains about long shifts and crappy pay for saving lives then it's easy to pull the same c
Re: (Score:3)
There is the simple fact the women tend to gravitate towards professional jobs that are physically comfortable and safe, which tend to pay less. People that work in McDonalds and in Amazon warehouse represent less than a few percent of the total labor market.
At my time a
Re: (Score:2)
FYI. The server job at nicer restaurants is dominated by gay men. Woman servers never stop complaining about waiters getting all the good shifts.
Re:Bullshit Stats. (Score:5, Insightful)
So people who are artists and nurses are stupid?
You are a moron,and I hope you have a lot of daughters so you can watch and try to fight a variety of entrenched attitudes and systems that push them away from what they want to do.
I have a daughter who like science and want's to be a game designer. I see how she has it stacked against her compared to my son.
Society pushes those biases onto the kids, not just parents.
Re: (Score:2)
So people who are artists and nurses are stupid?
If they expect to earn as much as medics and engineers? Most certainly yes. Re read the previous posts and try to find who's the first one to relate salary with stupidity.
Re:Bullshit Stats. (Score:5, Insightful)
"I have a daughter who like science and want's to be a game designer. I see how she has it stacked against her compared to my son."
In what way? If she gets through her education and can demonstrate that she's even remotely competent, she'll get hired simply due to being female. At least a minimum level of gender balance in the work force is a bonus to company social dynamics; too high concentration of either gender and you start getting a culture drift into extremes that enhance the worst aspects of some gendered trait expressions. Keep a certain level of balance and moderation tendencies will keep the culture decent either way. IT has so few women that the imbalance aspect itself can be a good reason to take on female prospective hires if they are at all available and capable of doing the job.
Now of course after the last few years it's become fairly obvious that one will have to do some research and interview probing to avoid hiring somone like Adria Richards, Rose Eveleth, Julie Ann Horvath or Matthew Garrett. The damage they'll cause through toxic interpersonal relationships will outstrip any productivity by massive amounts. Unless you have found an insurance policy that will actually reimburse you for F60.3 damage to your company. But that has nothing to do with gender.
OTOH (Score:2, Funny)
On the other hand, ladies, if you're looking for a husband, try Seattle!
You forgot something else about seattle (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Worst on the north American west coast: True.
But worst? Spend a winter in Chicago or Moscow. Spend a summer in Florida or Mississippi.
The workplace is changing. (Score:4, Insightful)
A relative of mine is a Veterinarian.
When he graduated in the '80s 80% of Vets were male. They worked from 8:00 AM to 7:00 PM or longer - often six days a week.
Today, 80% of Vets are female. Rather than working long hours, they often choose to have a family and work part-time. The net result is that 4-5 female vets do the job of one male vet.
This is not a bad thing. They get to have both a career and be at home for their families.
The net result though, it that their incomes are substantially lower than a male vet's would be.
Is this wrong? No. Is this a new way of having a work-life balance? Yes.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
A) You can't seem to do math.
B) Female Vets do work the same hours
C) Female vets general spend more time with the pet owners then men.
"t 4-5 female vets do the job of one male vet."
this just keep driving me up a wal. So by your "logic" a female vet works 3 hours a day?
Re:The workplace is changing. (Score:5, Interesting)
TFA is a crappy piece of socialist propaganda (Score:5, Insightful)
The entire 'article' reeks of class envy and jealousy nothing more than that. It's sounds like a socialist cry to arms more than anything else.
Women are not paid less if they are doing the same jobs and spending the same time doing them as men do, otherwise businesses would only hire women if they could actually pay them less to do the same exact shit.
Amazon is a company, it's not its job 'to create diversity' in any way, it already does more than any socialist ever could to grow the economy by hiring people, by paying them wages, by offering cheap products to everybody, including those very women and minorities that this garbage 'article' is yapping about.
The women who use Amazon likely already save more than 25% on their purchases compared to what they would have to pay if there was no Amazon at all. If 'investing in public transit' made Amazon money and was actually fucking legal in the fucking socialist/fascist ran cities, Amazon could certainly get into that business, but it's not clear that it could profit a retailer to get into transportation business. Should a chip manufacturer get into sewer business? Should a pastry chef get into electronics repair business?
Just because more white qualified males apply to Amazon than minorities or women do doesn't mean that this somehow is Amazon's problem to fix and that it is even a problem in the first place. I am sure there are jobs that minorities and women apply for in overwhelming numbers compared to white males.
If Amazon is not retaining people at the same rate as Microsoft for example (mentioned in this garbage 'article'), it doesn't mean Amazon is mistreating anybody, it means that Amazon gives people an opportunity to find a low level job that others wouldn't provide to those very people. Can the people that are hired by Amazon be hired by Microsoft? I doubt it very much. However once they worked for Amazon maybe their chances of being hired by other companies increase quite a bit, after all, if a year later people quit it means they can now find better jobs that they couldn't a year before, so Amazon is doing a fine job training people, giving them the lower run of the ladder to step on.
If it was up to the author of this garbage 'article', Amazon maybe would have the same hiring practices as Microsoft, but then where would all the people that Amazon hires right now find their first jobs?
Philanthropy has nothing on running a successful business and providing products/services that people are willing to pay for. It's easy to give away money to people, it's hard making money. Making money requires providing enough customer satisfaction to offset your costs, giving money away requires nothing of the sort. Everybody likes getting free lunch, but paying for lunch means that the people paying value it enough to give their money in exchange for that lunch and it's much harder to provide that type of satisfaction than to provide free money. Philanthropy destroys capital that otherwise can be used to increase real customer satisfaction and that's a crime as far as I am concerned. Africa will not get better with hand outs, it will get better with real business growth and opportunities provided by business growth.
As to the fucking ridiculous advices from this garbage 'article', they stink socialism so high, it's should be embarrassing even to most socialists. 'Advocate for an appropriate tax system in Seattle and Washington state'. WTF is an 'appropriate tax system'? AFAIC the only appropriate tax system is 0 tax, all other tax systems are inappropriate. I hope Amazon advocates for that. 'Lead in diversity both in Seattle and worldwide'? What? How about lead in customer satisfaction. 'Lead on supporting economic programs that make it easier for lower income, lower skilled Seattleites to stay in the city'? Fucking hell, how about save more money and build more business so that all the lower income folks can save even more by buying at Amazon and some of them work there anyway.
This 'article' is what is wrong with America and the Western world today, total, uninhibited socialist crapola that needs to die in fire, but instead it's spreading like worst type of cancer.
Re: (Score:2)
"Women are not paid less if they are doing the same jobs and spending the same time doing them as men do, "
demonstrably false.
I assume the rest of your post is based on that false data and did infect my mind with your stupidity be reading it.
Let be guess:
You incorrectly call it socialist. You assume gathering data that show something you don't like is 'whats wrong with America' and you make ad hom attacks against the article and author
Did I get that about right?
.
Re: (Score:2)
Nope, you got it wrong.
"Women are not paid less if they are doing the same jobs and spending the same time doing them as men do, " -- is NOT demonstrably false.
The underlying statistics show that any differences are insignificant when all factors are accounted for. It's just the truth, sorry if it doesn't help validate your mission to find injustice in the United States.
Handicapping the job market to eliminate differences in assertiveness, aggression, negotiating abilities, et al is what? Socialist? I p
entertainment value (Score:2)
Here’s a hot tip for Bezos and other technology leaders — if you want to hire more women, offer your competitors’ female employees more money and fund an ongoing array of collegiate technology scholarships for women and minorities.
Really, that's such a hot tip! Poach women from other companies! I'll bet Bezos never thought of that! On the other hand, the author isn't trying to make sense, he's just trying to get people to click on his article, so I guess he succeeded.
"Getting whiter" (Score:5, Interesting)
Can someone explain to me how a city getting whiter is necessarily worse for the city?
Is there a specific race that is missing? If you made it 30% Chinese, 30% White and 30% Indian is that good enough, or do you need some minimal proportion of every race?
And is it really "race" we need -- ie, if we bulk up on suburbanized, native-born nonwhites (like Mindy Kaling or Aziz Ansari as an example) does that really count, or is what we're looking for some kind of non-white cultural influence, so non-whites who act white don't count?
Please, someone tell me what the ideal racial combination is.
Re:"Getting whiter" (Score:4, Funny)
As the city gets whiter, it reflects more light, which is bad for cities with long, cold, winters.
Re: (Score:3)
Reasons it sucks for a city to be too white:
And apparently Slashdot no longer allows the ordered-list tag? Fuck it, I'm leaving it as it is.
Re:"Getting whiter" (Score:4, Interesting)
Wow. Really? Your post is incredibly obtuse.
Well, one issue is that the people who HAVE been living here getting displaced, due to rocketing rents, and being forced to move out of the city.
The other issue, since you obviously don't live in a coastal city, is that when you have a diverse mix of cultures living cheek-by-jowl, you have a very interesting, creative and vigorous culture. Education is improved, understanding is improved, and cuisine is improved - among other things. Port cities with a wide diversity have historically been the loci of learning and tolerance and artistic creativity. You want a peaceful civilization? Encourage lots of different people to live next to each other. You want to encourage intolerance and "racist" violence? Encourage cultural homogeneity.
"Race" doesn't exist, btw. You're talking about cultural background & skin color. There is only one human race.
Re: (Score:3)
You want a peaceful civilization? Encourage lots of different people to live next to each other.
Wow, I feel misinformed despite my NY Times subscription. You mean to tell me there's a war going on in 90+% white Scandinavia and I didn't know about it? Given how oppressive their governments are known to be and the complete absence of social welfare there, such barbarism I guess should be expected.
I'm especially glad to know that multiethnic regions like Africa and the Middle East are so peaceful and nonviolent, that must have been another article I missed out on.
Re: (Score:3)
If you look at:
Seattle demographics [seattle.gov]
in combination with the article you will see that the city is in fact more colored now than in 2000. The original poster is cherry picking statistics to prove his/her point. Seattle is less white now than in 2000. You could say that after a prolonged browning of the city it is now whitening slightly. The long term trend is however not clear.
I am also a bit confused by the article. It seems like Amazon is only hiring from Seattle itself and not the suburbs. Otherwise they
Killing us with rent (Score:2)
As a Seattlite, the impact that Amazon is having here is distinctly bad. Rents ARE rising at remarkable rates largely because Amazon has gone from 5,000 to 25,000 employees in the last 5-8 years, and they're being paid so much that they can easily afford $2k for 800sqft.
If we're to expect *another* 20,000 Ama-workers... then fuck me. Anyone paid less than $100k/year will be forced to the fringes of the city, and traffic with become so bad that we'll have to adopt J.G. Ballard's "Chronopolis" solut
Re: (Score:2)
Move.
Bullshit (Score:3, Insightful)
While Seattle women earned 86 cents per dollar earned by men in 2012, today, they make only 78 cents per dollar.
Well then fucking step up, ladies! Why the fuck do you get away with doing 22% less work than men do? Why do men constantly have to carry you? Men do almost a third more work than women do and frankly, as a feminist, I find that disgusting. Men deserve equality. Men shouldn't have to do more work than women do.
Meanwhile, during this time when women are only doing 78% of the work men do, women earn the same wages for the same work. That problem is solved, so the remaining problem is that women do unequally little work compared to men.
Time to stop lolligagging, women.
Amazon should just lower everyone's pay. (Score:2)
Problem solved.
Re: (Score:2)
Problem solved.
Making everyone poor is the usual means by which socialists reduce 'income inequality'.
Make Up Your Mind? (Score:2)
First she complains that Amazon employee are too standoffish, passive, and boring. Then she complains that they're too entitled, confrontational, and intense. Which is it?
Re: (Score:3)
Maybe we should ask Slashdot and DICE what percentage of *their* professional staff and execs are women and minorities.
Re: (Score:2)
Giving businesses the "freedom" to do this would be to return to the days when businesses would place a sign in their window stating "Irish/Jews need not apply."
Yes, the public can decide not to do business with a store with such policies, but what if
Re: (Score:2)
businesses would place a sign in their window stating "Irish/Jews need not apply."
The thing of it is, businesses still do this, they just don't advertise it. Guess what, it didn't make it any better. I would rather they did advertise it, so that I could enjoy not using them, and picking someone else. I don't drink Starbucks because the CEO is a Politically Correct Douche, and advertises it openly.
Re: (Score:2)
It's a lot better compared to then.
Fuck, you're stupid.
Re: (Score:2)
"Amazon should be free to hire who them like"
Yes, lets bring back etrenched racism, thing went so well
"and now lost again back to communist-socialism"
I see you are an idiot.
"Also flash news, weman[sic] do not prefer hard physical work all that much you know. "
False.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Except that's not true at all.
Women make over 6000 dollars less for the same job. 11,000 is they have one child.
You idiots keep bringing up the well debunking or misleading points. Maybe you should shut the fuck up and read up on the issue?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)