Philosophy Discussion Forums | A Humans-Only Club for Open-Minded Discussion & Debate

[Fried Egg]

Yes, that's what it should be about but it unfortunately isn't anymore. The concept of "Equal Pay" really should be about people's pay not reflecting arbitrary distinctions that are irrelevant to the job in question (i.e. race, sex, sexuality, etc.) It should not be about necessarily getting equal pay. This is because, in a truly meritocratic system, people's pay would reflect their productivity in the role. Just because two people share the same job description, it doesn't make them equally as productive.

You believe a meritocratic system is what will benefit us most? I'm not necessarily arguing for anything different, I'm just questioning an obvious assumption that has just appeared, as if by magic. Is meritocracy what we need, or what we want?

I've taken a while to ponder how to answer this question. I guess the implication of a meritocracy is that an external observer can come in and independently observe how meritocratic it is. However, it has been my precise contention that no third party observer can come in and make this kind of judgement.

To be clear, I'm an adherent of methodological subjectivism when it comes to economics. We try to quantify people's skills with standardised qualifications and measure their experience in years in order to help compare people applying for the same job, but each potential employer has their own frame of reference for making such decisions, and their own array of subjective preferences that vary from one person to the next. No independent observer can come in and categorically decide that an employer made the best decision possible in any given instance.

In a free market scenario, if an employer really refuses to employ certain people or pays them less than they are really worth (based on arbitrary characteristics not relevant to the job in question) we would expect that employer to pay a financial cost for this. They would be unnecessarily restricting their pool of available labour, or else losing them to competitors who realise their real worth. Hence the markets contain their own self correcting mechanism (that might take time to work itself out).

But, as I have said elsewhere, we should rarely expect to see perfectly proportionate outcomes and the persistence of statistical disparities does not mean that unfair discrimination persists.

[Pattern-chaser]

To be clear, I'm an adherent of methodological subjectivism when it comes to economics. We try to quantify people's skills with standardised qualifications and measure their experience in years in order to help compare people applying for the same job, but each potential employer has their own frame of reference for making such decisions, and their own array of subjective preferences that vary from one person to the next. No independent observer can come in and categorically decide that an employer made the best decision possible in any given instance.

I have to admit, now that you've stimulated my memory, that job interviews are next-to-useless. Certainly, in my own profession, I cannot see a way to talk to someone for maybe half an hour (?), and thereby divine their potential skills as a software designer. It takes a lot more investigation to answer that one. And I see no reason why other professions might differ.

For reasons of efficiency, profit and greed, employers want to carry out interviews according to simple numbers, figures of merit, as it were. They don't want to pay for the time necessary to find out, they just want a quick and cheap way of selecting from prospective candidates.

But we all know — don't we? — that you can't do the job properly if you also insist on doing it cheaply, above all other requirements. And so, returning directly to your words, yes. There is no way anyone can weigh up another human being, in almost any context, in a few minutes, and without lots and lots of contextual information. That applies to an "independent observer" just as it applies to anyone else, I think.

[Fried Egg]

To be clear, I'm an adherent of methodological subjectivism when it comes to economics. We try to quantify people's skills with standardised qualifications and measure their experience in years in order to help compare people applying for the same job, but each potential employer has their own frame of reference for making such decisions, and their own array of subjective preferences that vary from one person to the next. No independent observer can come in and categorically decide that an employer made the best decision possible in any given instance.

I have to admit, now that you've stimulated my memory, that job interviews are next-to-useless. Certainly, in my own profession, I cannot see a way to talk to someone for maybe half an hour (?), and thereby divine their potential skills as a software designer. It takes a lot more investigation to answer that one. And I see no reason why other professions might differ.

For reasons of efficiency, profit and greed, employers want to carry out interviews according to simple numbers, figures of merit, as it were. They don't want to pay for the time necessary to find out, they just want a quick and cheap way of selecting from prospective candidates.

But we all know — don't we? — that you can't do the job properly if you also insist on doing it cheaply, above all other requirements. And so, returning directly to your words, yes. There is no way anyone can weigh up another human being, in almost any context, in a few minutes, and without lots and lots of contextual information. That applies to an "independent observer" just as it applies to anyone else, I think.

Independent observers have no skin in the game like an employer does. They will suffer the consequences of a poor employment decision and reap the benefits of a good one.

But it goes beyond that. An independent observer is not (and cannot be) cognizant of an another person's subjective preferences and needs that contribute to their decision making process. For instance, a potential employee might appear on paper like the ideal candidate with lots of experience but as an employer with a small team, I might not thing that the individual in question is a good fit.

So to summarise, the independent observer does not have the same incentive structure, nor an awareness of the subjective preferences as those that are directly involved in an employment decision.

[LuckyR]

To be clear, I'm an adherent of methodological subjectivism when it comes to economics. We try to quantify people's skills with standardised qualifications and measure their experience in years in order to help compare people applying for the same job, but each potential employer has their own frame of reference for making such decisions, and their own array of subjective preferences that vary from one person to the next. No independent observer can come in and categorically decide that an employer made the best decision possible in any given instance.

I have to admit, now that you've stimulated my memory, that job interviews are next-to-useless. Certainly, in my own profession, I cannot see a way to talk to someone for maybe half an hour (?), and thereby divine their potential skills as a software designer. It takes a lot more investigation to answer that one. And I see no reason why other professions might differ.

For reasons of efficiency, profit and greed, employers want to carry out interviews according to simple numbers, figures of merit, as it were. They don't want to pay for the time necessary to find out, they just want a quick and cheap way of selecting from prospective candidates.

But we all know — don't we? — that you can't do the job properly if you also insist on doing it cheaply, above all other requirements. And so, returning directly to your words, yes. There is no way anyone can weigh up another human being, in almost any context, in a few minutes, and without lots and lots of contextual information. That applies to an "independent observer" just as it applies to anyone else, I think.

Many misunderstand or mislabel the details of the hiring process. The aspects of the selection process that can be described objectively, such as experience, education and certifications are evaluated and graded before the interview process. It makes no sense to offer an interview to a candidate who doesn't meet the qualifications necessary to occupy the position.

The purpose of the interview is to evaluate subjective things that aren't addressed in an application, such as their people skills, conversation style and personality.

Of course, it makes sense to hire those who you "get along with" during the interview if you're going to be officemates, or those who appear pleasant, knowledgeable and helpful for positions that deal with clients.

[Good_Egg]

Of course we all have different opinions as to the correctness of these subjective judgements, but that's why we have such things as courts — to render judgement when the disagreeing parties have been unable to do it for themselves.

Nothing wrong with providing an arbitration service, when two people - both believing themselves to be acting reasonably - voluntarily agree to abide by the decision of a third party.

But that's not what's going on here.

What seems to be missing from your philosophy is any notion that the state could be wrong, could over-reach, could exceed its function.

That there's an alternative to tyranny, not just a choice between the tyranny of the majority and the tyranny of some minority.

"The state has power, you don't - live with it" contains a certain amount of both truth and practical wisdom. But it's an inadequate answer to questions about how we could be better governed.

Whereas scrapping the Equality Act sounds like a constructive suggestion...

[Pattern-chaser]

What seems to be missing from your philosophy is any notion that the state could be wrong, could over-reach, could exceed its function.

[...]

"The state has power, you don't - live with it" contains a certain amount of both truth and practical wisdom. But it's an inadequate answer to questions about how we could be better governed.

The state, of any country, is one of the biggest boys on the playground. They get what they want by the usual means: might makes right. If you want to discuss, in theory, "how we could be better governed", that's one thing. We can discuss many things in theory, and enjoy ourselves while we do it. But in practice? Society, or the "state", if we want to call it that, does whatever it likes. It makes the rules. We follow them.

Our saving grace is that we have always had votes, to elect the leaders of our state. That gave us a level of control. But now that billionaires wield more power than most countries, that is no longer the case.

Whereas scrapping the Equality Act sounds like a constructive suggestion...

Without that wonderful Act, I would be screwed. So would many equally deserving disabled British citizens.

[Pattern-chaser]

The purpose of the interview is to evaluate subjective things that aren't addressed in an application, such as their people skills, conversation style and personality.

Of course, it makes sense to hire those who you "get along with" during the interview if you're going to be officemates, or those who appear pleasant, knowledgeable and helpful for positions that deal with clients.

And this brings us back to where we started. [Apologies to those who find this repetitive, but I'm going to use autism as an example of disability — one that I know a little about.] Your words seem reasonable and decent, and my first response was agreement.

Then I realised that such an approach would disqualify me from most employment. And others too, maybe equally deserving. As an autist, I am instantly dislikable; it's a 'talent' that comes with the condition. And yet, I had much to contribute. By the time I retired, I was a pretty good software designer. And I wrote software that made my employers quite a lot more than I cost them. But getting past the interview barrier was always the most difficult for me. I'm sure the same applies/applied to many others too.

Why should I have to put up with being barred from making my contribution? Should I have just given up, and scraped a (very) meagre existence on benefits? This is a human plea, but also one of economic and financial efficiency...

[Fried Egg]

Whereas scrapping the Equality Act sounds like a constructive suggestion...

Without that wonderful Act, I would be screwed. So would many equally deserving disabled British citizens.

Are you advocating for a meritocracy now?

I think I would probably favour the complete abolition of the 2010 Equality Act but at the very least I think it should be reviewed and modified accordingly to ensure that the kind of legal judgements we have seen recently (i.e. see the OP) do not happen again.

However, I am always suspicious of arguments in favour of market interventions (by the state) that are essentially saying they are needed to force certain individuals/companies to make decisions that are in their own best interests. Normally, that's the one thing you can rely on businessmen to do. And those that really are so stupid or prejudiced to act in their own best interests will pay for their bad decisions with less profit and eventually, if they persist, by going out of business.

Markets, when allowed to work properly, provide all the incentive people need to act in their own best interests. If the 2010 Equality Act has any justification at all, it is not this.

[LuckyR]

The purpose of the interview is to evaluate subjective things that aren't addressed in an application, such as their people skills, conversation style and personality.

Of course, it makes sense to hire those who you "get along with" during the interview if you're going to be officemates, or those who appear pleasant, knowledgeable and helpful for positions that deal with clients.

And this brings us back to where we started. [Apologies to those who find this repetitive, but I'm going to use autism as an example of disability — one that I know a little about.] Your words seem reasonable and decent, and my first response was agreement.

Then I realised that such an approach would disqualify me from most employment. And others too, maybe equally deserving. As an autist, I am instantly dislikable; it's a 'talent' that comes with the condition. And yet, I had much to contribute. By the time I retired, I was a pretty good software designer. And I wrote software that made my employers quite a lot more than I cost them. But getting past the interview barrier was always the most difficult for me. I'm sure the same applies/applied to many others too.

Why should I have to put up with being barred from making my contribution? Should I have just given up, and scraped a (very) meagre existence on benefits? This is a human plea, but also one of economic and financial efficiency...

Well, in software design where there is no client face to face interaction and little face to face team interaction, it makes sense to have interviews centered wholely on the finer points of experience and problem solving strategies, there would be little value in trying to assess people skills, like you should for a receptionist position.

[Pattern-chaser]

Whereas scrapping the Equality Act sounds like a constructive suggestion...

Without that wonderful Act, I would be screwed. So would many equally deserving disabled British citizens.

Are you advocating for a meritocracy now?

My view is that I would advocate for something less about long words — meritocracy, democracy, plutocracy... — and more about human values, concerned with individuals and groups too. It's about how people co-exist and co-operate; how we learn to live together for the benefit of all, oneself and others too.

I think I would probably favour the complete abolition of the 2010 Equality Act but at the very least I think it should be reviewed and modified accordingly to ensure that the kind of legal judgements we have seen recently (i.e. see the OP) do not happen again.

However, I am always suspicious of arguments in favour of market interventions (by the state) that are essentially saying they are needed to force certain individuals/companies to make decisions that are in their own best interests. Normally, that's the one thing you can rely on businessmen to do. And those that really are so stupid or prejudiced to act in their own best interests will pay for their bad decisions with less profit and eventually, if they persist, by going out of business.

Markets, when allowed to work properly, provide all the incentive people need to act in their own best interests. If the 2010 Equality Act has any justification at all, it is not this.

This Act allows and entitles me to ask people or businesses for "reasonable adjustments" to make life just a little easier for me. N.B. the operative word there is "reasonable"!

But this is an example — a relatively inconsequential one, from a commercial and financial point of view — of something quite different from "equal pay". So maybe we're heading off here on a tangent to the main topic?

[Pattern-chaser]

The purpose of the interview is to evaluate subjective things that aren't addressed in an application, such as their people skills, conversation style and personality.

Of course, it makes sense to hire those who you "get along with" during the interview if you're going to be officemates, or those who appear pleasant, knowledgeable and helpful for positions that deal with clients.

And this brings us back to where we started. [Apologies to those who find this repetitive, but I'm going to use autism as an example of disability — one that I know a little about.] Your words seem reasonable and decent, and my first response was agreement.

Then I realised that such an approach would disqualify me from most employment. And others too, maybe equally deserving. As an autist, I am instantly dislikable; it's a 'talent' that comes with the condition. And yet, I had much to contribute. By the time I retired, I was a pretty good software designer. And I wrote software that made my employers quite a lot more than I cost them. But getting past the interview barrier was always the most difficult for me. I'm sure the same applies/applied to many others too.

Why should I have to put up with being barred from making my contribution? Should I have just given up, and scraped a (very) meagre existence on benefits? This is a human plea, but also one of economic and financial efficiency...

Well, in software design where there is no client face to face interaction and little face to face team interaction, it makes sense to have interviews centered wholely on the finer points of experience and problem solving strategies, there would be little value in trying to assess people skills, like you should for a receptionist position.

Oh yes, agreed. I would've made a *very* bad receptionist. My personality is wholly unsuited to public relations of any kind: "instantly dislikable".

But that also means that, for no reason other than simple misunderstanding, people like me find it *very* hard to get past interviewers. Their professional aims aside, they just don't like us, so they manufacture excuses not to hire us. This is exactly what they would do in other circumstances too, for many other different reasons. Even the most professional business person is also a human, with human traits and preferences. And (NT) humans don't like autists. We're too weird.

But the particular example of autism doesn't matter. There are many people in similar circumstances, and this is about them all. And so I wonder, is there a fair and just way that everyone can have a chance to contribute, for the benefit of all?

[Fried Egg]

I think I would probably favour the complete abolition of the 2010 Equality Act but at the very least I think it should be reviewed and modified accordingly to ensure that the kind of legal judgements we have seen recently (i.e. see the OP) do not happen again.

This Act allows and entitles me to ask people or businesses for "reasonable adjustments" to make life just a little easier for me. N.B. the operative word there is "reasonable"!

But this is an example — a relatively inconsequential one, from a commercial and financial point of view — of something quite different from "equal pay". So maybe we're heading off here on a tangent to the main topic?

If one agrees that the judgments that are being reached recently are bad for society/the economy then we we need to change (or repeal) the legislation that leads to courts producing these outcomes.

As I discovered reading one of the legal judgements around this, the equality act says this:

“A’s work is of equal value to B’s work if it is –
(a) neither like B’s work nor rated as equivalent to B’s work, but
(b) nevertheless, equal to B’s work in terms of the demands made on A by reference to factors such as effort, skill and decision-making”

Given that it says, this, it is no surprise that courts are trying to interpret this law as best they can and are trying to determine whether two different jobs are in fact of equal value. No doubt, they will continue to do so unless the equality act is changed accordingly (or repealed).

Now, I'm open to the possibility that there might be some things in it worth keeping. You obviously believe so. But I think it is clear that, in it's current form, it is damaging to society and our economy.

[Pattern-chaser]

But I think it is clear that, in it's current form, it is damaging to society and our economy.

It is clear to you, as you say. But to everyone? Maybe not. And the "damage"? I'm not sure about that either. I think this issue is about more than "our economy". It seems to embrace compassion and care for others, which introduces a strong moral element to the associated issues. That makes things more ... complicated, I think.

[Lagayascienza]

Those who are slaves to the subjective preference theory of economics have extremely limited vision. Free markets are one thing. But free markets could not even exist without the regulatory guiding hand of governments which prevents monopolies and which provides for the redistribution wealth that, to some extent, satisfies core human morality. The myth of a golden age made possible by free markets and meritocracy has never sat well with humans. Laissez-faire economics is necessary, but needs to be regulated to save it from itself. Otherwise it would boil down to the last man left standing. It's BS.

[Fried Egg]

But I think it is clear that, in it's current form, it is damaging to society and our economy.

It is clear to you, as you say. But to everyone? Maybe not. And the "damage"? I'm not sure about that either. I think this issue is about more than "our economy". It seems to embrace compassion and care for others, which introduces a strong moral element to the associated issues. That makes things more ... complicated, I think.

Well, yes, it obviously isn't clear to everyone or it wouldn't be happening. That's why I started this thread, to express why I felt it was misguided and self defeating (and see what others might argue in it's defence). Still waiting for others to make the case...

Those who are slaves to the subjective preference theory of economics have extremely limited vision. Free markets are one thing. But free markets could not even exist without the regulatory guiding hand of governments which prevents monopolies and which provides for the redistribution wealth that, to some extent, satisfies core human morality. The myth of a golden age made possible by free markets and meritocracy has never sat well with humans. Laissez-faire economics is necessary, but needs to be regulated to save it from itself. Otherwise it would boil down to the last man left standing. It's BS.

So, the pros and cons of methodological subjectivism (and possible alternatives) well deserves a thread in it's own right. Also the subject of free markets and when government intervention is justified also deserves its own thread. I'd be happy to engage in either should you be so inclined.

But in relation to the topic at hand, where has methodological subjectivism guided me wrongly? And what is about the cases in question here that merit intervention in order to prevent the free market working as it otherwise might?

I'm not actually a free market absolutist. I think that there is an important (but limited) role for the state that is required for the free market to even work in the first place. The question here though is whether you believe the kind of interventions (into the free markets) as we have seen recently (as discussed in the OP) are justified? I would really like to see somehow make the case (if that's what they believe). Maybe there is something I've missed, something I'm not seeing?