tolerating unequal outcomes

[bricklayer]

It is my experience that the vast majority of those I have personally encountered who have a low tolerance for unequal outcomes are also the least able to produce quality outcomes.

Is one's tolerance for unequal outcomes a good measure of that one's ability to produce quality outcomes?

When hiring, it is one of the "telling" things I attempt to get a feel for.
I have taken it as a baseline assumption for years, and it has never failed me.

What do you think?

 

[variant]

dp

 

[variant]

It is my experience that the vast majority of those I have personally encountered who have a low tolerance for unequal outcomes are also the least able to produce quality outcomes.

Is this claim rigorously scientifically sourced or just your feeling on the matter?

I doubt you are very good at measuring peoples tolerance for unequal outcomes.

In my experience, people who say it is right to lie to avoid paying taxes so they can keep more of what they own, tend to cover up their dodgey morality by erecting a straw man of other peoples arguments as "an intolerance of equal outcome" or some other such tripe.

 

[bricklayer]

Is this claim rigorously scientifically sourced or just your feeling on the matter?

I doubt you are very good at measuring peoples tolerance for unequal outcomes.

In my experience, people who say it is right to lie to avoid paying taxes so they can keep more of what they own, tend to cover up their dodgey morality by erecting a straw man of other peoples arguments as "an intolerance of equal outcome" or some other such tripe.

Your outcomes are showing.

 

[variant]

Your outcomes are showing.

Are they? What is my net worth? What kind of Job do I have?

Do I make enough money that I should lie about it to cheat on my taxes?

 

[bricklayer]

Are they? What is my net worth? What kind of Job do I have?

Do I make enough money that I should lie about it to cheat on my taxes?

Net? It's a wash. You're so deep in debt that you've had to devise an exculpatory scenario wherein you are a victim of Big Bank.
You sit. That's all I tell you about your job. These days, it;s most likely in front of a key board.
You have rarely been in a position to lie on your taxes and every time you were confident that you would never get caught, you did.
This much is for sure, (up until now I have described you in the broadest US demographic terms) you have never, will never, pay more tax than you absolutely possibly absolutely must.

Me too.

 

[variant]

Net? It's a wash. You're so deep in debt that you've had to devise an exculpatory scenario wherein you are a victim of Big Bank.

You sit. That's all I tell you about your job. These days, it;s most likely in front of a key board.

You have rarely been in a position to lie on your taxes and every time you were confident that you would never get caught, you did.

This much is for sure, (up until now I have described you in the broadest US demographic terms) you have never, will never, pay more tax than you absolutely possibly absolutely must.

Me too.

Well out of what you said you got the part about a keyboard right.

What does this tell us about your ability to judge others?

I do not lie to lower my tax burden, nor do I advocate any such thing. Do not equate us.

 

[variant]

There is a serious problem with my business plan; I'm getting old.

Thirty two years of manual labor has built me up, but now it tears me down.
I want to be able to enjoy what we have worked for.

There are things that money can't buy. I love being a mason. I have never thought of anything else I would rather be, but I can't be that forever.


I will still do my art, and I will help the men in their respective ventures.

But no, I am not "better". I am not even getting better. I'm just not going to be the boss anymore.

Sadly It happens to all of us.

I wish you luck. I hope you can fill that particular void.

 

[Harpuia]

I'll have the ability to retire at 49 if I so wish. (at currently a 97% confidence level)

Without tax evasion.

And I don't tolerate unequal outcomes on only two conditions:
1) Cheats
2) Bullies (especially the type that rub it into the poor)

Does that help answer your question?

 

[iluvatar5150]

It is my experience that the vast majority of those I have personally encountered who have a low tolerance for unequal outcomes are also the least able to produce quality outcomes. Is one's tolerance for unequal outcomes a good measure of that one's ability to produce quality outcomes?

When hiring, it is one of the "telling" things I attempt to get a feel for.
I have taken it as a baseline assumption for years, and it has never failed me.

What do you think?

That's interesting - I wonder what your criteria for "quality outcomes" is.

I work in the entertainment industry and I am surrounded by liberals and they all produce quality outcomes every day. In fact, many of them are at the top of their fields, working on massive titles which you'd recognize instantly.

-Dan.

 

[whatbogsends]

It is my experience that the vast majority of those I have personally encountered who have a low tolerance for unequal outcomes are also the least able to produce quality outcomes.

Is one's tolerance for unequal outcomes a good measure of that one's ability to produce quality outcomes?

When hiring, it is one of the "telling" things I attempt to get a feel for.
I have taken it as a baseline assumption for years, and it has never failed me.

What do you think?

You realize, of course, that you use the term "outcome" to mean different, unrelated concepts. One meaning of outcome you refer to is income. That is the "outcome" of one's effort, but later, when you talk about "producing outcomes", you are not talking about income, rather than result in their work.

Being able to produce a good "outcome" (i.e. product) is not necessarily correlated with yielding a good "outcome" (i.e. income). There are often some correlation within a specific job level/title, but the disparity between job level/titles is wholly not correlated with performance.

I have a high tolerance for unequal outcomes.

I have a low tolerance for a system that is driven by outcomes that don't accurately reflect one's inputs.

 

[kermit]

It is my experience that the vast majority of those I have personally encountered who have a low tolerance for unequal outcomes are also the least able to produce quality outcomes.

Is one's tolerance for unequal outcomes a good measure of that one's ability to produce quality outcomes?

There's an old saying about job performance, never be indispensable because then they won't promote you either. My wife learned this first hand. She was the assistant to a VP at her company. He often told her that she was the best assistant he ever had. After a few years she applied for higher positions in her company and was always passed over by people far less qualified and experienced. She learned through the grapevine that her current boss valued her too much and was not willing to let her go. Shortly there after she got pregnant with our daughter and quit that job.

When hiring, it is one of the "telling" things I attempt to get a feel for.
I have taken it as a baseline assumption for years, and it has never failed me.

How do you know it has never failed you? How do you know that you didn't not hire a candidate that would have been the best worker you've ever had and that possessed the leadership skills and vision to make your company the worldleader in masonry? The fact is that you don't

What do you think?

I think that you are trying to justify the "questionable" business ethics to which you have admitted on this forum (ie. cheating on taxes and refusing to hire and firing due to political differences)

 

[JCSr]

It is my experience that the vast majority of those I have personally encountered who have a low tolerance for unequal outcomes are also the least able to produce quality outcomes.

Is one's tolerance for unequal outcomes a good measure of that one's ability to produce quality outcomes?

When hiring, it is one of the "telling" things I attempt to get a feel for.
I have taken it as a baseline assumption for years, and it has never failed me.

What do you think?

In other words, you try to determine who is liberal so you don't hire them, right?

LOL

I think you probably lost out on some productivity based on your political leanings.

 

[RedDead1981]

In other words, you try to determine who is liberal so you don't hire them, right?

LOL

I think you probably lost out on some productivity based on your political leanings.

Actually he's posted exactly that in the past.

 

[variant]

Actually he's posted exactly that in the past.

Doesn't play well with people he disagrees with, that one.

 

[Harpuia]

Am I the only one who thinks it's probably not a good idea to admit to tax evasion, even if you are for the most part anonymous?

 

[variant]

Am I the only one who thinks it's probably not a good idea to admit to tax evasion, even if you are for the most part anonymous?

It is highly ill advised to admit publicly to any crime ever.

Anonymity is not guaranteed on the Internet.

 

[Harpuia]

I'm finding it very disturbing that someone admits to tax evasion and this is on top of the several things same person has already admitted to over the past year or so, and then claim some moral high ground over others just because they're not as rich as them.

Tax evasion and political discrimination (from a previous thread) are not causes to put yourself in a moral high ground. I'd think that'd start by actually living one's life honestly. Just sayin'.

 

[variant]

I'm finding it very disturbing that someone admits to tax evasion and this is on top of the several things same person has already admitted to over the past year or so, and then claim some moral high ground over others just because they're not as rich as them.

Tax evasion and political discrimination (from a previous thread) are not causes to put yourself in a moral high ground. I'd think that'd start by actually living one's life honestly. Just sayin'.

Well, it is just a claim of the moral high ground, It's not really something we have to embrace.

Did you see what the slander the guy wrote about me based only on the idea that we often disagree politically?

Then he has the audacity to say he doesn't think he's better than me.

 

[lordbt]

I'm finding it very disturbing that someone admits to tax evasion and this is on top of the several things same person has already admitted to over the past year or so, and then claim some moral high ground over others just because they're not as rich as them.

Tax evasion and political discrimination (from a previous thread) are not causes to put yourself in a moral high ground. I'd think that'd start by actually living one's life honestly. Just sayin'.

I dont think there is anything immoral in his position in the least--with the possible exception that he is jeopardizing something of greater value--his liberty--for something of lesser value--his money. As far as not hiring people you disagree with politically, he is a free man and free to associate and hire whoever he likes. In the end it is only himself that he harms because in not hiring a person because they are liberal may cost him a very productive individual (although thats not very likely)