The 30% say it all. Although the proportion of women in the population of just over 50%, the proponents of the legal quota for women in leadership positions do not require 50% or more. Why just 30%? Why not 27.7% or 72.35169%?
The number is of course fictional. There is no "right" rate. And if there were, how should government bureaucrats and politicians know it?
fact is that for the small number of women in corporate leadership positions are a lot of reasons, which are reflected statistically. To name a few:
Pregnant women, women are other things besides the important career as men, women have different interests and choose other occupations than men ...
What are the implications of government intervention in the personnel issues? First
worse managers. One can assume that only a company itself knows what people can really use to which positions. This Etnscheidungen may have some errors, but it is impossible that a common, artificial rule reduces the number of errors from the outside, as the bureaucrats and politicians are unaware of the specific companies and different companies, different choices for their Staff have.
women who have something on the box and get right to the top are therefore also called into question. You must always ask whether they really are by power, where they are or whether they were carried only to fulfill the quota.
fairness in individual cases using produce a general rule is impossible, and a stupid idea in itself.
Given the absurdity of the project and the obvious incompetence of the government on such issues have to wonder. Or not.
I think what the socialists of all shades so forth causes widespread support for the possibility that private property and the decision-making authority provide owners of capital and business leaders in question.
to the related topic of 'equal pay for equal work, "Milton Friedman has already said it all ...
0 comments:
Post a Comment