QuoteOriginally posted by: twofishQuoteOriginally posted by: mwamMy experience has been that the young ones tend to do the long hours, no questions asked, but the older ones keep whining about not being able to see their spouse, tuck their kids into bed, not being able to play with their kids at the weekend, how the commute to the burbs is so long etc. etc. It's as if they feel having outside commitments is an excuse to have someone else pick up their slack. It isn't.The reason for this is that old people are much less willing than young people to spend lots of time doing stupid things. Young people don't ask questions because they don't know that something is stupid waste of time, whereas old people have had the experience of spending hours and hours on something that isn't productive in the end.Perfect illustration of why older hires are often difficult to manage. The last thing I want is a new 30-something associate, knowing zilch about banking, thinking he knows what tasks are worth doing and what aren't.

QuoteOriginally posted by: mwamPerfect illustration of why older hires are often difficult to manage. The last thing I want is a new 30-something associate, knowing zilch about banking, thinking he knows what tasks are worth doing and what aren't.No problem at all. I'll be happy to take the people who you won't. A new 30-something associate might not know something about banking, but if they get hired, it means that they know something useful about something, which is going to be useful to the firm. A lot depends on corporate culture. The firm that I work for happens to care a lot about family, which means that someone that is not willing to spend 100 hours/week so that they can be with their kids actually increases the chance they get hired.One reason older people are somewhat more difficult is that older people know what they have to put up with, and what they don't have to put up with.

Prejudice exists as long as it is allowed to exist.Not sure what you mean ? It is an internal mental state, how do you disallow what people think ?This explains why women have to fight tooth and nail to quell misogyny. Most of the fighting has been done by men. The socialist model of people "fighting for their rights" is almost never the case in situations of success for the underdogs. Women were kept out of many jobs until external events like wars caused the men who ran things to fight their workforce to allow women in. A lot of misogyny has actually thus been caused by giving women more choices, since these allow them to compete and win against men.>100 years ago there was strong prejudice against certain immigrant or religious groups in the US and in Europe, and this gave >Sacco-Vanzetti and the atrocities we know in WW2.Yes, but not the ones you think. We got the atrocities in WWII because Irish Catholics led by the Kennedys made it very clear to Hitler and his gang that the USA would not fight alongside Britain in a general war. The British were far from uniformly good guys of course which is why the Kennedys have managed to help first Hitler, and then terrorists groups operating in Ireland as a sort of revenge.>While it is true that knowledge, education and individual prosperity tend to foster tolerance & inclusiveness,Simply not true in any useful set of general cases.Germans in the 1930s were amongst the best educated people on the planet and their economy was growing rapidly.Slavery in America did very well during the times in which it's economy accelerated past many others. The British empire had a very complex and thorough racist culture whilst it was on the rise, at time when Britain had between 25 and 50% of all international trade. Modern education is essentially a British invention. Americans have the worst education of any developed nation, except Britain, yet both are firmly in the top end of wealth per head.Israelis have a very good understanding of Islam and Arab culture, don't see tolerance or inclusiveness there much. >Coming back to banking, it is certainly the case that significant profits can be made out of mutually supporting relationships, and with money >often comes a sense of legitimacy and power which must constantly be placed under scrutiny. Scrutiny by who ?Recently one Peter Hain a major figure in the British Labour party, and a committed socialist started "scrutinising" the pay of people in finance.He wants the money to be used by his government.His cabinet shares many characteristics with the leadership of any european neo fascist party, in having the same number of Moslems in positions of power (zero), same number of black men in positions of power (zero), and number of women not in "traditional female roles" also zero. Indeed the Italian fascist party has had a better record of giving power to minorities than the British Labour government.Recall that Margaret Thatcher, Britain's first (and only) female prime minister was leader of the right wing Conservative party. No labour government has ever allowed any woman any power, ever. I'm older than you, and recall when feminists really did used to say "if women ran things there wouldn't be wars"....Being feminists they were wholly ignorant of history, and of rulers like Elizabeth I of England, Mrs. Gandhi of India, Goldaa Meir of Israel et al who fought quite well.>In the 1980s women were often asked in interviews whether they would consider an abortion in order to pursue their careersAlthough that's not good, it does not mean that these days, the question is not asked. When people are banned from asking a question, they do not say "I must not think this", they simply fill the answer in their own head using their own prejudices. Witness the fact that since legistlation banned this question, abortions have gone up for "social reasons".> - there could not be a more egregious example of a vicious question designed to (a) exclude, (b) undermine and (c) underpayWomen are underpaid because they are far more likely to study things that do not help them get a job. Yes, there is sexism, but the worst is in the schools, not the workplace. Girls are still led to "caring" subjects and daft shit like Media Studies and modern languages.

QuoteOriginally posted by: DCFCPrejudice exists as long as it is allowed to exist.Not sure what you mean ? It is an internal mental state, how do you disallow what people think ?By "exist" I mean decisions/facts and extends to any rationale put forward to justify them. What I am saying is that e.g. a decision to hire taking age into consideration should not be allowed to happen. Everyone is of course free to think whatever they want, so long as they act responsibly.QuoteOriginally posted by: DCFC>100 years ago there was strong prejudice against certain immigrant or religious groups in the US and in Europe, and this gave >Sacco-Vanzetti and the atrocities we know in WW2.Yes, but not the ones you think. We got the atrocities in WWII because Irish Catholics led by the Kennedys made it very clear to Hitler and his gang that the USA would not fight alongside Britain in a general war. The British were far from uniformly good guys of course which is why the Kennedys have managed to help first Hitler, and then terrorists groups operating in Ireland as a sort of revenge.Now this is funny: how do you know what I think? My idea of WW2 is certainly not some sort of 'good-guys' vs 'bad-guys' war. All I am saying is that most of its atrocities have their roots in a number of widespread prejudices. What I am implying is that we must be careful not to allow these prejudices to exist anymore.QuoteOriginally posted by: DCFC>While it is true that knowledge, education and individual prosperity tend to foster tolerance & inclusiveness,Simply not true in any useful set of general cases. [...] Isn't it what you suggested just a few posts before? >Irrational prejudice has a few main sources.>One is a mix of stupidity and ignorance, possibly driven by sampling error.>Banking these days requires on average a higher level of education and intelligence than average jobs.>The most racist or sexist people I meet are social workers, simply because the low pay and culture mostly attracts pretty dim people with defective educations.>If we look at structurally racist societies, it is not the elite regarding the lower group as "inferior" that drives it but the lower end of the higher group who realise they need protection.I am a bit puzzled now. Besides, you did not quote the rest of my sentence & paragraph: '..., there is no automaticity. [...] There are many highly educated people who are utterly (and even sometimes unknowingly) racist.' So we in fact seem to agree here.QuoteOriginally posted by: DCFC>Coming back to banking, it is certainly the case that significant profits can be made out of mutually supporting relationships, and with money >often comes a sense of legitimacy and power which must constantly be placed under scrutiny. Scrutiny by who ?Good question. I was not thinking of political scrutiny, rather a combination of internal scrutiny and, if wanting, judiciary scrutiny. At the internal level, most banks now have diversity programmes, often as a result of past legal battles won over discrimination cases. I was not suggesting that the money made of mutually supporting relationships was earned in a dishonest or immoral way; rather I was suggesting that there should be mechanisms to prevent from getting there.QuoteOriginally posted by: DCFC>In the 1980s women were often asked in interviews whether they would consider an abortion in order to pursue their careersAlthough that's not good, it does not mean that these days, the question is not asked. When people are banned from asking a question, they do not say "I must not think this", they simply fill the answer in their own head using their own prejudices. Witness the fact that since legistlation banned this question, abortions have gone up for "social reasons".Everyone is free to be cynical and disguise their motives under acceptable appearances. However, if you ban interviewers from reporting 'I don't want to hire this woman because she might become pregnant' and instead pin them down to assess skills, disguised motives are more likely to become apparent in comparison with other reports, unless perhaps everyone is being cynical...QuoteOriginally posted by: DCFC> - there could not be a more egregious example of a vicious question designed to (a) exclude, (b) undermine and (c) underpayWomen are underpaid because they are far more likely to study things that do not help them get a job. Yes, there is sexism, but the worst is in the schools, not the workplace. Girls are still led to "caring" subjects and daft shit like Media Studies and modern languages.Much is to be said about women's own misogyny when it comes to educating their daughters. The world does not change in one day. But I have hope!

QuoteOriginally posted by: eiriamjhGood question. I was not thinking of political scrutiny, rather a combination of internal scrutiny and, if wanting, judiciary scrutiny. At the internal level, most banks now have diversity programmes, often as a result of past legal battles won over discrimination cases.Diversity programs don't really work unless there is a business rationale behind them. Also one thing that is important in talking about "diversity" is to not merely talk about it in terms of anti-discrimination. If you have a quiet team, you probably need someone that is loud. If you have a loud team, you need someone that is quiet. If you have all people with physics Ph.D.'s, then you need someone on the team that doesn't have a physics Ph.D.'s. etc. etc. If you have an important committee in which everyone is in the NY office, then you probably need to add someone from London, and vice versa.QuoteEveryone is free to be cynical and disguise their motives under acceptable appearances. However, if you ban interviewers from reporting 'I don't want to hire this woman because she might become pregnant' and instead pin them down to assess skills, disguised motives are more likely to become apparent in comparison with other reports, unless perhaps everyone is being cynical...Actually no. If you just don't like someone for whatever reason there isn't a shortage of excuses you can find for not hiring them. There are few discrimination cases that I know of when it comes to hiring, because most people don't know why they weren't hired, and there are so many legitimate reasons not to hire someone that it's not hard to disguise illegitimate ones. Most discrimination cases come from layoffs and promotions. In the case of layoffs, one reason companies *like* to fire large numbers of people at the same time is that if you fire large numbers of people at the same time, it's easy to show statistically that people weren't fired for the wrong reasons.The way that you really end up banning people from reporting "I don't want to hire this woman because she might become pregnant' is to have hiring managers who are (or were) pregnant women. That way the conversation becomes "I don't want to hire this person because they wouldn't want to hire a woman because she might become pregnant." In investment banking, you work with so many different types of people from so many different cultures and backgrounds, that having these sorts of attitudes is going to seriously affect your work performance.Also focusing family issues on women I think is a bit archaic since there are men who like to work in places that are family friendly.(Relating this to interview advice.... Don't make any assumptions about the skills and background of the interviewer based on what they look like.)

QuoteOriginally posted by: twofishThe way that you really end up banning people from reporting "I don't want to hire this woman because she might become pregnant' is to have hiring managers who are (or were) pregnant women. That way the conversation becomes "I don't want to hire this person because they wouldn't want to hire a woman because she might become pregnant."Huh?

Twofish: This is your final warning ....

QuoteOriginally posted by: twofishThe way that you really end up banning people from reporting "I don't want to hire this woman because she might become pregnant' is to have hiring managers who are (or were) pregnant women. That way the conversation becomes "I don't want to hire this person because they wouldn't want to hire a woman because she might become pregnant."B.S. If my girl were pregnant she'd want to surround herself with a bunch of hard-working men she could hustle, not a bunch of competing freeloaders.

QuoteOriginally posted by: ArthurDentQuoteOriginally posted by: twofishThe way that you really end up banning people from reporting "I don't want to hire this woman because she might become pregnant' is to have hiring managers who are (or were) pregnant women. That way the conversation becomes "I don't want to hire this person because they wouldn't want to hire a woman because she might become pregnant."Huh?Once you have women who have families and have been pregnant as hiring managers, people who have problems with women working tend not to get hired. If during an interview you give some sign that you think that women should not be employed because of family issues, you are likely to get a very, very strong "don't hire this person" recommendation when the people in charge (who might include a pregnant woman) make a hiring decision.

QuoteOriginally posted by: eiriamjhQuoteNow this is funny: how do you know what I think? My idea of WW2 is certainly not some sort of 'good-guys' vs 'bad-guys' war. All I am saying is that most of its atrocities have their roots in a number of widespread prejudices.Not only that, but also in the idea that one must obey one's government even when the government tells one to commit an outright crime. Germans who shot Jews weren't all anti-semites, but they were all obedient. To prevent other Holocaust from happening, we should not only fight prejudices, but also put an end to the idea that the state is the most sovereign entity on the planet, that there are no limits to what orders can a government give its soldiers and officials. Hence the ICT, Human Rights Charter and other modern inventions.QuoteMuch is to be said about women's own misogyny when it comes to educating their daughters.This is a general pattern, that people who were enslaved in some way pass their mentality to their children. I think that this is the way they can pretend their life is normal and OK.

QuoteOriginally posted by: katastrofaenslaved in some wayDoes that include the way of not actually being enslaved?

One question: who got the voting rights first: men or women?

Carrying that five-entry 30,000 page thesaurus around has crippled you in more ways than one.

QuoteOriginally posted by: mwam... My experience has been that the young ones tend to do the long hours, no questions asked, but the older ones keep whining about not being able to see their spouse, tuck their kids into bed, not being able to play with their kids at the weekend, how the commute to the burbs is so long etc. etc. It's as if they feel having outside commitments is an excuse to have someone else pick up their slack. It isn't.And my experience is that I started studying university level math at 34 (with nothing but AP calculus to go on) worked my way through a bachelors degree (that is I WORKED, and put myself through school - mommy and daddy didn't pay for it) and just finished my FE program with a 3.5 average. The young people in my program had no where near the kind of math I had, I tutored some of them through school. I was the one who stayed up late at night solving, coding, proving, so that I could explain it to them the next day. Young people have no work ethic - they want the big payoff and then they're gone. That is - you train them and they take off. Me and the other older guys in my program were the people who knew what work was, knew how to apply ourselves to doing good work instead of wanking off like the kids who wanted all their free time and couldn't be bothered with applying themselves to anything but the dream of being hired by an I-Bank. There were kids in my program who came to class to sleep, cheated on every assignment they ever got, did nothing for three semesters but memorize interview questions, and are now working for large banks (DB, Citi, Credit Suisse, the list is endless) You want to work with those people - or do you want to work with an "old" guy who will pick up your slack and outrun you every step of the way when you come in hung over ? It is people like you who make it hell for people over 30 to get a job and its a damn shame.

QuoteOriginally posted by: davidrisingQuoteOriginally posted by: mwam... My experience has been that the young ones tend to do the long hours, no questions asked, but the older ones keep whining about not being able to see their spouse, tuck their kids into bed, not being able to play with their kids at the weekend, how the commute to the burbs is so long etc. etc. It's as if they feel having outside commitments is an excuse to have someone else pick up their slack. It isn't.And my experience is that I started studying university level math at 34 (with nothing but AP calculus to go on) worked my way through a bachelors degree (that is I WORKED, and put myself through school - mommy and daddy didn't pay for it) and just finished my FE program with a 3.5 average. The young people in my program had no where near the kind of math I had, I tutored some of them through school. I was the one who stayed up late at night solving, coding, proving, so that I could explain it to them the next day. Young people have no work ethic - they want the big payoff and then they're gone. That is - you train them and they take off. Me and the other older guys in my program were the people who knew what work was, knew how to apply ourselves to doing good work instead of wanking off like the kids who wanted all their free time and couldn't be bothered with applying themselves to anything but the dream of being hired by an I-Bank. There were kids in my program who came to class to sleep, cheated on every assignment they ever got, did nothing for three semesters but memorize interview questions, and are now working for large banks (DB, Citi, Credit Suisse, the list is endless) You want to work with those people - or do you want to work with an "old" guy who will pick up your slack and outrun you every step of the way when you come in hung over ? It is people like you who make it hell for people over 30 to get a job and its a damn shame.Hmm…rock on shoulders guy, or guy that knows how to game the game.Tough question there!