Affirmative Action - The Distance

[thatdamnJoe]

for me, who does not benefit in any way from aa or bee, i like them because they make you mad, they are sort of revenge, i am really sick of people who are ten times dumber than i am assuming that i am where i am because of aa, fortunately, my industry does not have a lot of dumbasses, i pity people who work as accountant and the like

You are "sick of people who are ten times dumber than i am"

but

"fortunatey , my industry does not have a lot of dumbasses"

Did you just say you're sick of people who are less intelligent than you thinking little of you and then continue to say that fortunately there arent many of those people?

So, what then? You're only smarter than a handful of people?


But of course there are many AA beneficiaries who are tarnished with the brush of non-deservance. It's a small price to pay though isnt it?

 

[DreamKing]

Try to read first before you post random drivel.

read what?

 

[DreamKing]

Why the hell is it a companies responsibility to provide skills and training to people? Should they teach them basic reading and writing skills too?

Your saying to business, here, take the poorly skilled and uneducated, and now its your responsibility to train them. We don't care that you will probably become uncompetitive in your market. Does that sound fair to you?

Business has nothing to do with this. This is all down to government. They are responsible for schooling and skills development.

Do you realise that south africa isnt a little island, we are part of the global economy. People will not invest here, if we offer less capable, and sub par service offerings, they simply take their money somewhere else.

In business, its the best man for the job. Full stop. If that man happens to be white, then too bad. Dont blame business, blame this pathetic government we have and the education system that they have driven into the ground.

+1

those AA idiots never understand what they are doing.
they only think "SA = the world', I want to tell you (AA idiots) your "world" is too small.

 

[Claymore]

BS, companies only focus on "profits". Even doing charity - like things, the actions behind it is still the "profits" as the NUMBER 1 priority

Rubbish. Making profits is the main aim of a company, yes, but most companies have other goals as well, including upliftment, sustainability, employee welfare, etc.

As for charity - in many cases, it has nothing to do with profits, and everything to do with being a good corporate citizen.

consider yourself is in the "global village" ...........

I have no idea what you mean.

 

[Arbiter]

Rubbish. Making profits is the main aim of a company, yes, but most companies have other goals as well, including upliftment, sustainability, employee welfare, etc.

As for charity - in many cases, it has nothing to do with profits, and everything to do with being a good corporate citizen.

Excuse me while I roll around a bit.

Shareholders are the greedy pigs who drive companies to pursue profits above all else. All the rest, upliftment, ethics, etc, are only activies the companies take part in to advance the profit motive in different ways.

However, a lot of good can come from a company that focuses on profit.

 

[DreamKing]

Excuse me while I roll around a bit.

Shareholders are the greedy pigs who drive companies to pursue profits above all else. All the rest, upliftment, ethics, etc, are only activies the companies take part in to advance the profit motive in different ways.

However, a lot of good can come from a company that focuses on profit.

+1

excatly!

companies have no responsibility to develop a country, only if the government paid them to do so. Don't forget companies pay taxes!

those AA idiots never understand why investors have to start a business! That is a pity. their intelligences are not high enough to understand that.

 

[Frankie]

Sure signs that some around here don't know the difference between a "charity" and a "business".

 

[TooFastTim]

Careful... Eskom in apartheid built dozens of power stations and then mothballed the lot of them. Basically flushing Rmillions down the drain and setting us back years later.

You need to have the right "facts"...fact...

Well, it's not the only reason tha Eskom is in deep doo-doo but it is one of the major reasons as pointed out by the Ohlson report.

And of course affirmative action can work. It's unfortunately necessary. However affirmative action should not be about hiring someone purely based on their colour or sex. I'm not saying that doesn't happen. On the other hand hiring that person who needs to learn is often exactly the opening that person needs. Perhaps you're too young, but I remember a time when women were considered incapable of doing a job like engineering, and even with a degree and excellent marks she would struggle to get employment, and if she did get employment she'd struggle to get recognition for her work. You simply cannot redress that kind of discrimination by saying hire the best. The notion that companies hire only based on who is best for the job is itself a fantasy regardless of the existence of affirmative action.

Your premise assumes that there is a more-or-less homogenous workforce. As a result of apartheid this is not the case in SA. Thus when a pale male is bounced to be replaced by PDI the chances are that the PDI has nowhere near the education and experience of his/her predecessor. The black HG maths and science matric stats bear this out.

 

[Claymore]

Excuse me while I roll around a bit.

Shareholders are the greedy pigs who drive companies to pursue profits above all else. All the rest, upliftment, ethics, etc, are only activies the companies take part in to advance the profit motive in different ways.

However, a lot of good can come from a company that focuses on profit.

You ever worked for a company? Because every company I've ever worked for has done non-profit related things to assist people, stuff like supporting Reach for a Dream, helping build/maintain houses or schools for the underprivileged, that sort of thing.

Companies are made up of people, and many people are not purely interested in money to the exclusion of everything else. Many companies, like many people, want to make a difference.

 

[Blah!Blah!]

every company I've ever worked for has done non-profit related things to assist people, stuff like supporting Reach for a Dream, helping build/maintain houses or schools for the underprivileged, that sort of thing.

Many companies, like many people, want to make a difference.

go to oprah

 

[Gomario]

You ever worked for a company? Because every company I've ever worked for has done non-profit related things to assist people, stuff like supporting Reach for a Dream, helping build/maintain houses or schools for the underprivileged, that sort of thing.

Companies are made up of people, and many people are not purely interested in money to the exclusion of everything else. Many companies, like many people, want to make a difference.

Clearly you are 'a bit' confused Never mind - I vote for you to replace Vavi. I like your thinking and hope BEE will get you to the top.

 

[noxibox]

Your premise assumes that there is a more-or-less homogenous workforce.

I do not make this assumption.

You ever worked for a company? Because every company I've ever worked for has done non-profit related things to assist people, stuff like supporting Reach for a Dream, helping build/maintain houses or schools for the underprivileged, that sort of thing.

Companies are made up of people, and many people are not purely interested in money to the exclusion of everything else. Many companies, like many people, want to make a difference.

And when companies do this do they do so anonymously or is their name splashed everywhere?

companies have no responsibility to develop a country, only if the government paid them to do so. Don't forget companies pay taxes!

Do their taxes really cover the benefits they are afforded?

 

[Arbiter]

Sure many companies want to make a difference. To their bottom line.

If you have a pension, you own that company. Because the people who manage your pension will go out of business if they support cute companies who want to "make a difference". Like Oprah, who has made $ 2.5 BILLION out of "making a difference". Watch what happens to her show ratings every time she gives a house away to some obscure nameless family; she earns ten times that back in a month.

A company will do "non profit" things because it gets them PR. It's simply a form of advertising.

 

[TooFastTim]

I do not make this assumption.

So you're saying that 9 out of ten white graduate engineers should be replaced by 8 black matriculants without higher grade maths and science and one black graduate engineer? Those are the numbers.

For every 1 black higher grade maths and science matriculant there are 10 whites. Therefore in order to get the workforce to represent the demographics of SA the above is what MUST happen.

 

[DreamKing]

Do their taxes really cover the benefits they are afforded?

so is that means, tax payers should pay up until the government "feels" it is "enough"?

answer => never enough!

 

[MidnightWizard]

Demographics

We all know what the population figures and breakdown look like.

So if BEE must represent the demographics of the country then there will be VERY few jobs left for whites.

The question and the problem though is -- how many unique businesses / companies have been started by BEE and are running successfully and are employing other BEE ????

Is it fair to expect a whitey who through blood sweat and hard work has started , owns , and runs a successful company to now subject his company ( lifes work ) to the dictates of BEE and be FORCED to employ people that are potentially harmful to his company ( life-blood).

The Gov / Parastatals can pretty much do what they want -- have done even in the bad old days of National Christian Socialism. ( sheltered employment for life -- until 1994 )

But to FORCE the "private-sector" to also comply makes NO sense to me.

IF these BEE workers were anywhere as accomplished and productive as Germans , Koreans , Japanese , Scandinavians etc then the headhunters would be kept continually busy. ( and there would be a huge demand for them in the job market )


MW

 

[Gomario]

@Midnight Well said bud . . .

 

[WilD_CaT]

Simply not true. A semi-free market, i.e. one that includes appropriate regulation and counterbalances can work and be beneficial. There's good reason why you won't typically find free markets in the real world.

And of course affirmative action can work. It's unfortunately necessary. However affirmative action should not be about hiring someone purely based on their colour or sex. I'm not saying that doesn't happen. On the other hand hiring that person who needs to learn is often exactly the opening that person needs. Perhaps you're too young, but I remember a time when women were considered incapable of doing a job like engineering, and even with a degree and excellent marks she would struggle to get employment, and if she did get employment she'd struggle to get recognition for her work. You simply cannot redress that kind of discrimination by saying hire the best. The notion that companies hire only based on who is best for the job is itself a fantasy regardless of the existence of affirmative action.

There is no good reason. There is no basis for saying that regulations can provide something that the free market cannot.

Go to www.mises.org Read some of the articles on basic free market economics and theory from the Mises institute (Austrian school)

Considering the fact that the free-market is driven by profits, and competition, how can you say businesses won't hire the best people regardless of race or gender?

There is a good reason why woman (Still today) in circumstances receive less pay than men.
[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WAzkQWgIEbU[/ame]

There was a study done by an economist on the pay of whites vs blacks in the US between I think 1890-1930 or something. The gap was almost nil despite the overt racism of the time. The reason was that blacks were just as productive as whites so in order to attract the best workers you had to pay them a proper salary.

Just don't have the link for the study above.


The free-market still is the best answer racism, sexism, environmental issues and any other issues society has. The reason is quite simple. Freedom allows the problems to be solved in a multitude of ways. The business that supples the most valued solution to society will stay in business.

 

[thatdamnJoe]

There is no good reason. There is no basis for saying that regulations can provide something that the free market cannot.

Go to www.mises.org Read some of the articles on basic free market economics and theory from the Mises institute (Austrian school)

Considering the fact that the free-market is driven by profits, and competition, how can you say businesses won't hire the best people regardless of race or gender?

There is a good reason why woman (Still today) in circumstances receive less pay than men.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WAzkQWgIEbU

There was a study done by an economist on the pay of whites vs blacks in the US between I think 1890-1930 or something. The gap was almost nil despite the overt racism of the time. The reason was that blacks were just as productive as whites so in order to attract the best workers you had to pay them a proper salary.

Just don't have the link for the study above.


The free-market still is the best answer racism, sexism, environmental issues and any other issues society has. The reason is quite simple. Freedom allows the problems to be solved in a multitude of ways. The business that supples the most valued solution to society will stay in business.

You are of course assuming one can judge who is "the best" candidate based only on an interview.

This is where the problem comes in. When people don't have enough info to make that call of who will be the "best" for the job, they fall back to who/what they know.

Totally free markets do/should not exist. The current economic crises points that out quite nicely. Unregulated greed in the financial markets led to a global economic meltdown.

 

[thatdamnJoe]

We all know what the population figures and breakdown look like.

So if BEE must represent the demographics of the country then there will be VERY few jobs left for whites.

The question and the problem though is -- how many unique businesses / companies have been started by BEE and are running successfully and are employing other BEE ????

Is it fair to expect a whitey who through blood sweat and hard work has started , owns , and runs a successful company to now subject his company ( lifes work ) to the dictates of BEE and be FORCED to employ people that are potentially harmful to his company ( life-blood).

The Gov / Parastatals can pretty much do what they want -- have done even in the bad old days of National Christian Socialism. ( sheltered employment for life -- until 1994 )

But to FORCE the "private-sector" to also comply makes NO sense to me.

IF these BEE workers were anywhere as accomplished and productive as Germans , Koreans , Japanese , Scandinavians etc then the headhunters would be kept continually busy. ( and there would be a huge demand for them in the job market )


MW

Not all companies are forced to submit to these regulations. Where did you get that?

There are exemptions for smaller enterprises, and there are ways of getting a higher level BEE contributor score without giving away equity.