That undermines my assumptions. Thanks for the link. I'm very surprised a company of Walmart's size has such low profit per-employee. I would have assumed some accounting tricks were responsible but maybe it's the nature of their business.
I think it's a good idea to encourage everyone to try to get paid more, since (a) corporations make massively disproproportionate wealth relative to employees and (b) programmers are bad at the type of social and interpersonal skills that are required for negotiation.
That said, as someone who has been through this, I think your advice is a naively optimistic oversimplification of the forces that hold programmers back from getting paid more and, for the most part, people who follow your advice will still end up getting paid less than business analysts and project managers for cultural reasons expressed by some of the answers on that page.
The only difference is, with your approach, they may feel as if they have done everything they could, rather than suffering in quiet resentment (and, from a psychological perspective, this is not to be underestimated).
I agree on the importance of caution when applying statistical conclusions in individual cases - especially hiring decisions. I don't deny that there are, as you said, "mean women and caring men". But I don't believe in denying the existence of gender differences simply to avoid supporting the status quo. It can be useful to be aware of these patterns because, with a broad brush, we can cautiously identify where people's skills are most likely to reside.
On the "Empathy Quotient" test, the average female score is 47 while for males it is 42.
So, no, I'm not using "a slight statistical association to rationalize" either (a) "a cultural prejudice" or (b) "bigotry" (which you unfairly accused me of in an earlier comment). I could just as easily accuse you of denying the weight of the scientific evidence because of misogyny but that would be silly. The fact is, there is room here for reasonable debate and your attempt to paint this issue in black and white is unjustified.
Why are you calling me a bigot? Is it possible you could find a less offensive way of engaging in this discussion? I would appreciate it. I also disagree with you, after all, but have not resorted to calling you names.
It's one of many studies that demonstrate empirically that women are more empathic than men. My assumption is that the difference relates to genetics but what matters is that there is an observable difference that will have an impact in the real world - especially in the workplace - which is what this discussion is about.
But the question is not about whether some men are suited to the job. It's about who is on average more suited to a particular type of job. It is well established scientifically that women are - generally speaking - so I would prefer to see more women taking roles that are suited to their innate capacities whether it be in technology management, education or any other role that takes advantage of their innate higher capacities in empathic communication.
But perhaps not an appropriate response to scientific fact. Countless psychological studies have documented women's higher innate capacities for communication and empathy. So if you disagree on that fact, you are simply misinformed. What I'm saying might not be popular and might even sound prejudicial but there is no debating the innate genetic differences between men and women.
You're defining 'successful' in monetary terms while I'm more concerned with the psychological health of the working environment.
I'm saying women are better managers because they are less prone to the types of socially tone-deaf interpersonal problems you see lampooned in Dilbert.
In other words, if I had to choose between a male manager who could create a succesful company versus a female manager who knew how to foster a harmonious working environment, I would choose the harmonious working environment over monetary "success" every time.
In the end, what does it matter to me if the company I work for is financially successful or not? On the other hand, if my manager is able to help create an environment that is more pleasant for every involved, that's something I'm interested in and that's where I think women in general are more naturally capable than men.
More men are not needed in childcare/teaching because women are naturally - from birth - better at the type of empathy and communication that is required in those fields.
It's the same reason that women excel in technology management roles (while generally being inferior in technical roles because of inadequate training or aptitude, exceptional cases like Marissa Mayer excepted).
Even a woman with average communication/empathy skills relative to other women (emphasis on 'empathy' - because this is what really separates men from women in communication) is often far better at management/planning than 99.99% of male technologists.
I think you're right that outright theft of the car is unlikely. But the advantage that Zipcar has over this p2p system is Zipcar personnel can keep a log of everything related to a vehicle - the condition of all of its parts and a full inventory of its accessories. This also allows Zipcar to make final decisions about who has caused damage or theft. In a p2p system, there is no central authority to adjudicate these issues - which requires relying on the word of either the owner or the renter to decide who is responsible.
I'm not sure why you were downvoted either but I suspect it was for the same reason I was for asking similar questions.
As you point out from the faq, the onus seems to be on the owner and the only consequence for the dirtiness is the ability to rate the user. I think a more serious question relates to the adjudication process in the case of more serious violations such as scratches, damage or theft of items from the car. Do they automatically take the word of the owner - and what happens in the case of false claims against a renter by an owner - what appeal process does the renter have in that case?
You're right. The "marginal difference", as you say, is key. So let's assume theft of parts happens rarely. Don't we still need a process in place to adjudicate when it does happen? Let's say the theft is not of a water pump but a car radio or, let's say, the owner left his radar detector or his daughter's ipod in the car and the renter walked off with it. What's the process for adjudicating that claim? Does getaround need to get involved? What if it's a false claim and the renter is unfairly charged for it? The same applies to scrathes and damages. If the owner claims the car was scratched during the rental, does he need to back up that claim with photographic evidence - before and after pictures? And what's the process for authenticating those pictures as valid? All I'm saying is there's a minefield of potential disputes here, especially because there is not necessarily a hand-off between the owner and the renter when the car is returned.
Sounds like you live in an affluent or at least broadly educated area, if people broadly have such high-minded concerns about the welfare of the community. Your experience may not translate to more economically-mixed neighborhoods.