41–50 of 73 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's much harder to make false accusations in a court of law.
It's much harder to make any accusations in a court of law.
Here's a thought: maybe it should become standard practice for companies to issue a hidden body camera to any employee who requests one. I'm sure there would be lots of issues around this that I haven't thought through yet, but it would certainly solve the evidence problem. Indeed, I would expect the mere existence of the policy to put a major damper on misbehavior.
I really hate that the answer offered to many modern social problem seems to be "more surveillance". I'm not saying it wouldn't help or that we shouldn't do it but like police body cams this is only as effective as the people charged with following through on the consequences. If a company retains control of the camera and wants to bury the evidence they'll still do it.
Your concern is very reasonable, but that's why I didn't suggest just blanketing the office with surveillance cameras.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
We've reached this place in part because formal avenues of responding to harassment are so terrible. A lot of harassment cases involve sexual assault or other crimes, but the police and the courts are often so indifferent or hostile that they cannot even come close to fulfilling the role they should. Improving how the criminal justice system handles such crimes would be a big help, but it's a monumental task.
> A lot of harassment cases involve sexual assault or other crimes, but the police and the courts are often so indifferent Are they? Or are most sexual assault cases incredibly messy and unclear?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
While I share your aspiration, let me make an inflammatory question for the purpose of prompting thought. (I would hope readers take this as a neutral statement; since obviously the women entering the workforce see it as a net positive, but it may be a line of questioning to attempt to explain why it's so easy to see it as a gender battle) What if it is zero sum, or at least, approaching that? There are two phenomena…
> [...] sticky total # of jobs. As women further enter the workforce, the mean household income will trend towards double income, and the labor pool will be contested with more applicants, in both cases rendering a male applicant at a substantial disadvantage (comparatively to history). Isn't this the lump of labor fallacy [1]? I think the economic theory leads to a different description: As more women enter the work…
As a society we need to have a much more sober response to this sort of allegation. Immediate career-ending consequences based on a mere accusation are ultimately bad for both accuser and accused, because it raises the cost of making an accusation.
We've reached this place in part because formal avenues of responding to harassment are so terrible. A lot of harassment cases involve sexual assault or other crimes, but the police and the courts are often so indifferent or hostile that they cannot even come close to fulfilling the role they should. Improving how the criminal justice system handles such crimes would be a big help, but it's a monumental task.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's much harder to make any accusations in a court of law.
Right, because as an individual you can't make an accusation in criminal court. That is done by a prosecutor, who will have to be reasonably confident that he has sufficient evidence to get a conviction.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I really hate that the answer offered to many modern social problem seems to be "more surveillance". I'm not saying it wouldn't help or that we shouldn't do it but like police body cams this is only as effective as the people charged with following through on the consequences. If a company retains control of the camera and wants to bury the evidence they'll still do it.
Yes, I think the recordings should be under the control of the employee who requested the camera. It should be their choice what parts, if any, to show the company — and they should have the ability to show them to a lawyer if they choose. Your concern is very reasonable, but that's why I didn't suggest just blanketing the office with surveillance cameras.
The ideal situation is that both parties get immediate copies of the recordings. That way neither gets the ability to cherry pick of censor.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
While I share your aspiration, let me make an inflammatory question for the purpose of prompting thought. (I would hope readers take this as a neutral statement; since obviously the women entering the workforce see it as a net positive, but it may be a line of questioning to attempt to explain why it's so easy to see it as a gender battle) What if it is zero sum, or at least, approaching that? There are two phenomena…
> [...] sticky total # of jobs. As women further enter the workforce, the mean household income will trend towards double income, and the labor pool will be contested with more applicants, in both cases rendering a male applicant at a substantial disadvantage (comparatively to history). Isn't this the lump of labor fallacy [1]? I think the economic theory leads to a different description: As more women enter the work…
I’ve worked for large institutions that have been performing the same work for decades and I’m familiar with their employment statistics. By any measure, they are using fewer person-hours of labor annually. About 40% less since 1997, about 60% less than 1987. One subdivision in particular replaced about 3,000 workers with 50 IT guys and about $10M in annual IT spend circa 1995. Those labor costs are held in check by a constant stream of cheap contractors.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15953907
A bankrupt and highly corrupt county does not represent the country as a whole. I do mean it as an honest question - is there evidence of widespread police indifference to rape? I'd like to know how often getting a rape kit done leads to a criminal conviction. Does it double the likelihood?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> [...] sticky total # of jobs. As women further enter the workforce, the mean household income will trend towards double income, and the labor pool will be contested with more applicants, in both cases rendering a male applicant at a substantial disadvantage (comparatively to history). Isn't this the lump of labor fallacy [1]? I think the economic theory leads to a different description: As more women enter the work…
It seems a little sketchy to me that apparently labor is exempt from the basic laws of supply and demand. Fundamentally, enlarging the supply of workers, through the entry of women, ending systemic discrimination against minorities, elimination of early retirement while reducing demand should have an effect on the price of labor. I’ve worked for large institutions that have been performing the same work for decades a…
Large institutions that have been performing the same work for decades do not fully represent the economy as a whole.