That would be the most efficient mechanism for ensuring the money is re-spent, locally, supporting local small businesses and entrepreneurs. Starving people really never have Swiss bank accounts, and rarely outsource. Whatever your morals, and whatever the morals of 'the poor' as you see them, there is a pragmatic argument here that is absolutely worth forcing people to pay, much like you're forced to pay taxes: you're directly subsidizing people who are almost compelled to spend their money inside their local communities, allowing others who are more enterprising to prosper.

That's just math. Your moral feelings may have to take a back seat to pragmatism, here.

Yeah exactly. The not-poor should already be making contributions to the poor. Maybe we should have an elected body to manage the collection and distribution of these contributions. We could make it income related so those who can are able to contribute more. It could be universal so there's already a safety net there if people lose their jobs or become ill without paperwork or delays, also so that no one is poorer for accepting work. Seems reasonable.

I'm angry you want to force me to contribute - you douche. I've been contributing to the poor my whole life

>Only if it's a king and you lay diagonally. Try a California King

I can only imagine what it's like to try and move one of those. Getting a king up a flight of stairs in a standard height hallway with a landing and 90 degree pivot was a nightmare.

This. I love my California King. Wouldn't trade it for anything.

"It seemed like he cherry-picked research that agreed with his views and didn’t seek dissenting research or opinions before sending the document to internal Google groups." - The purpose of posting this memo was to seek dissenting research and other opinions.

Pure gold. This is exactly what I was thinking when I read that.

I'm sure you can come up with a better argument. Assuming men are sexist and that you have to prove yourself to them is plainly hypocritical.

First, it's not my argument. As I said it was copied verbatim from the article.

Second, I do find interesting that you feel offended at the thought that women might assume men are sexist, but from your comment history you seem to be OK with Damore's memo which ascribes a number of traits to women.

Don't you think that is a bit hypocritical in itself?

Fact: women and men have varying distributions in abilities and traits - due to biology

Fact: women and men aren't distributed equally in tech and leadership.

And your conclusion is that anyone who presents these facts and says that maybe one causes the other means that women are "less suited" for engineering?

There is no logical basis for this. He didn't say what you are attributing to him.

> why should any woman have to overcome the additional barrier of proving that she’s not like other women.

Well, she only has to prove it to men that she assumes are sexist or incapable of understanding population distributions. I mean, really? Let's fight sexism with sexism.

Furthermore, simply look for interviewers who tend to reject women and minorities more often. Remove them from the interviewer pool.

So, for reference, after taxes a single person takes home what? $80k. That's about $6,666 per month, leaving $2666 after paying rent. That's not including food. Also for reference, when I lived in a South American country, rent was running about $400 a month, but even if it was $700, wouldn't you be doing better in South America? You can't ignore the fact that food and services are extraordinarily cheaper due to the lower cost of living.

>Seriously, the evidence is quite clear that this attitude is complete nonsense and only works for people that have certain advantages already.

Ahem... citation needed

I've been referencing the still existing pay gap between men and women. Same for minorities.

For this attitude to be accurate, the problem is simply that women and minorities are not educating themselves and/or are not "shopping themselves around." If you want me to cite studies showing that specifically is false, quite frankly I don't have time to dig around for that. You could find studies showing it is true.

The still existing pay gap for men and women, when women make 105% of what men make for the same job title and experience?

You need to study more.

Sounds like you have a source. Because that is a rather bold claim.

Interesting perspective, but:

>I’m not remotely surprised, however, that Damore naturally assumes the differences between typically female and male traits mean that men are more skilled.

He never said or implied that. The whole problem is people overreacting about what they read in to it.