swansont

Let’s be clear that parents typically pay for school. So growing up middle/upper class may have little to no impact on your wealth when you go to get a job. You’re talking about different things as if they are identical, and they aren’t Were you asked about your wealth during a job interview, or did you ask when interviewing someone else? One was paywalled, and I’m just humble civil servant. The abstracts of both are clear enough that they don’t address the claim in question. You are free to quote from them if you think they do. In keeping with academic rigor. I’m not claiming they are wrong, and I’m not making any counter claim. I’m simply asking for evidence that your scenario - hiring only the rich - is something that is widespread enough that it makes sense to protect people from it. What’s the demarcation of “the rich” anyway? How much money do you need in the bank to qualify? I suggested I was smelling BS, so clearly this missed the mark.

I'm not being pedantic. It's outside of the realm of my experience, and doesn't pass the smell test. It sounds like a movie-plot problem. Which is why I ask. Your links are about class and classism, not whether someone is rich, though of course there is overlap. I responded to your questions "What is to stop me from deciding only rich people can work for me?" and "Should there be some kind of affirmative action for those with a long family history of poverty?" For example: one of the bullet points in the first link is 18% of privately-educated graduates earn over £30,000 within 6 months of starting work - compared to 9% from state schools. None of that tells you if the individual in question is rich or poor, and says nothing about whether there was discrimination on this basis in the hiring process, so this says nothing about what I asked. What that statistic says is that you will probably get a better job if you can go to a private school. Doesn't say anything about being rich, or whether you were hired on that basis. Since all you would have to do is not ask the applicant if they were rich or poor, I'd say it's likely to have zero effect. You can reject protected classes based on them not being qualified for the job. The same applies here.

I want you to show that wealth-based hiring discrimination is widespread. That's how other protected classes were afforded their status. And there are exceptions "employers may consider membership in a protected class when making employment decisions if there is a business necessity for doing so, or if membership in a protected class is a bona fide occupational qualification." https://subscriptlaw.com/protected-classes/ Then it sounds like everyone has a problem. You could not be a member of the "poor" and be affected. IOW, you're fighting a certain kind of bias. Like "long-haired freaky people need not apply" Nothing illegal about that Your accent does not guarantee to what class you belong. There's only correlation. You would be discriminating on the basis of that accent, not on the financial status. IOW, consider "My Fair Lady" (yes, it's fiction, but consider the plausibility of a similar scenario) I don't believe I said I wouldn't engage in it, nor do I think I spoke for anyone else No, I asked for evidence that socioeconomic status was explicitly impacting hiring practices. You are weaving a bit of a man of straw here. You don't agree but you also agree? I don't understand. Let's see it then. evidence of rejecting candidates solely because of whether they are rich or poor. I'm not asking that it come from you, per se. I don't think an individual would personally have generated that sort of data, and otherwise it would just be anecdotes. I would expect you to point me to credible sources of information. I'm not sure where this is coming from. This is a science site. Surely you should expect challenges to nebulous claims.

A. It's not unconstitutional until 1. it's an actual law, and 2. it's found to be by a federal court B. Ben Franklin is not subject to prior restraint penalties since he's already said what he said, and he's dead. Also, this is not a government site, so unless directed by a government entity, it's not possible for the site to deprive anybody of any rights whatsoever. It's entirely possible that the demarcation of 15' (or whatever is decided on) could be upheld. They could find that anything inside that is interference with the police. The GOP has gotten a lot of judges put in place, and this is the kind of thing that chips away at rights

Unfortunately, "unconstitutional" is what the supreme court says it is, though this would probably get struck down in whatever federal district it's in first. But it will likely take a while for that to happen. (if it gets signed into law, which hasn't happened yet) Why is Ben Franklin's name redacted?

You can't rent/borrow good clothing? Your accent makes you rich or poor? If you have hiring criteria that aren't related to how the person will do their job, you will end up with bad hiring practices, and that will be a drag on your company. If this were widespread, I would imagine there would be complaints about the discrimination. You say it has come up - do you have evidence of this? Is it more than an isolated case or two? What ought to happen? If a company decides they only want to hire rich people, they can hinder themselves that way. There are other companies out there that will hire better candidates and be more competetive in most cases, all else being equal.

It's an interpretation, not a theory. i.e. it's there to aid in figuring things out. I don't think that makes it "very unscientific" It would be like saying using ROY G BIV as a mnemonic to remember the spectrum is unscientific. It's not claiming to be science, and it's not contrary to science, so that label doesn't apply.

Doubtful. The explanation requires a certain basic understanding of physics, which is not universal, and ignores the reality that not everyone responds to the same style of explanation.

How does this come up in the hiring process?

Citing a youtube video is not exactly a rigorous argument, and “force” has a particular definition in physics. A force is not involved here.

caracal says ! Moderator Note and in this thread, we are discussing their idea.

! Moderator Note “Go to this other site and read this” violates rule 2.7 in a variety of ways. Link deleted.

You know, we've had a number of visitors who made a similar claim about this site, and none of them were actually banned for daring to speak the truth. That's a narrative that feeds the ego of a small mind, though, so I can see why they latch on to it.

The one million number is apparently for the entire military, so that includes air and sea forces. But the professionals are also the ones that are the senior enlisted and the officers, not many of whom are going to be included in the ground assault.

The anecdotes from the conflict suggest there are plenty of conscripts.

Not everyone in the military is trained in the necessary combat roles, and not all combat soldiers are fit to deploy. Training, like upkeep and maintenance of equipment, matters. Russians conscript much of their military. Mercenaries are professional soldiers.

As you admit to being a neophyte in the matters of science, that's not surprising. But perhaps you should reconsider your approach here - there are some basic things you don't know, and yet you are stating things with with a confidence that is unwarranted. Further, you seem to have awarded a lot of credibility to whatever your source has been for previous statements, and yet when they've been called into question by knowledgeable people here, you push back. Asking questions is good. Unfounded assertions, not so much. Yes, and different numbers of electrons mean the binding will be different, Unfortunate. There are a lot of misconceptions that could be cleared up, were you motivated to make that happen.

So you're just expanding the definition of a cult to include this ludicrous example in order to support your position. Not worthy of the label is another way of saying no.

symptom378 is banned as a sockpuppet of Jalopy, who, as it turns out, is Adelbert_Einstein and Karen Brown and thequeenofhearts. Truth in advertising requires their next user name to be Dick

! Moderator Note More like swansont's gonna be mad because some jackhole is violating the rules

No

! Moderator Note We're a science discussion board. Please knock it off.

awaterpon has been banned a a sockpuppet of yahya515 and The_eagle

The object is always in motion, and the distance is always increasing, but to say "the distance increases without bound" is incorrect. The distance never exceeds 6. It is clearly bound. At best this is just sloppy use of terminology. edit: or, it's recycled crap.

You can't ignore the parts of physics that say this doesn't work.