763 karma · joined June 11, 2013
>"An investigation of 500 U.S. businesses found that companies with more race and gender diverse teams had higher sales revenue, more customers, greater market share, and greater profits than did less diverse companies.4"
You are being very uncharitable to suggest I am "grasping at straws" by reviewing the very document you are using as evidence.
Lets review page 3, each paragraph is a claim.
1. executive boards
2. executive boards
3. top management level
4. top management teams
5. greater profit and market share
6. student study make believe
Now you can see why I Chose 5 to investigate as 1-4,6 are pretty much unrelated to what we are talking about which is diversity of the work force, not high level management.
"how would you compare your organization’s performance over the past two years in terms of market share? .|.|. Would you say that it was (1) much worse, (2) somewhat worse, (3) about the same, (4) somewhat better, or (5) much better?”
Surely we can be more factual than this?
EDIT: I guess I broke the #ListenAndBelieve rule.
http://www.un.org/en/universal-declaration-human-rights/
Additionally I haven't seen anything to suggest that the government is denying them from taking on their own legal council?
Lets all get on the same page as well, this is how the United Nation defines an asylum seeker:
The United Nations 1951 Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees and the 1967 Protocol Relating to the Status of Refugees guides national legislation concerning political asylum. Under these agreements, a refugee (or for cases where repressing base means has been applied directly or environmentally to the defoulé refugee) is a person who is outside their own country's territory (or place of habitual residence if stateless) owing to fear of persecution on protected grounds. Protected grounds include race, caste, nationality, religion, political opinions and membership and/or participation in any particular social group or social activities.
Fleeing poor living conditions or a civil war, do not fall under this description.
> why do you assume that preserving a high income level is a priority over not neglecting your children
I didnt assume its a priority, it only becomes a priority if you want to have children and not make less than a man/family without children or full time/part time caring spouse.
At this point I dont even understand what your arguing, I dont even have children, stop projecting.
If only the majority of the US population had that kind of choice.
We are arguing on the same side on this one just quibbling over semantics, "the pay gap" is in my opinion a reflection of the asymmetric nature of raising children between employees and companies, this manifests by women choosing careers on average that are more flexible and have better non monetary benefits, these benefits dont have a positive effect on profitability of the companies/industries that offer them, therefore they have lower average incomes than others. until that burden is equally placed on all companies we wont see any change in the choices females and males make because they will be constrained by their situation (family etc) and that will influence their decisions. To suggest this situation is because of sexism and not capitalism is intellectual fraud the statistics just dont back it up.