Women are 70% of CalArts students

>women are 70% of CalArts students
>men get 75% of the jobs

How is it possible that even when everyone stacks the deck in favor of women, men still manage to get most of the jobs in this industry? Pisses me off.

Attached: images (63).jpg (707x434, 42K)

Other urls found in this thread:

theguardian.com/science/2016/mar/08/genetic-study-shows-mens-height-and-womens-weight-drive-earning-power
money.com/money/3925308/rich-families-lose-wealth/
thebolditalic.com/love-your-iphone-dont-thank-apple-thank-the-us-government-4f702dd7117e
twitter.com/AnonBabble

Must be the patriarchy.

Men are naturally better at arts.

It's Leonardo da Vinci, not Laquona Johns

Maybe the men are better at what they do?

Women lack the ambition of men. There are exceptions. But it's true.

most of those females are disgusting asians that all draw the same

I don't understand the logic you're using. If there's a new trend of women becoming students of animation, then that won't retroactively make them established parts of the industry ten or twenty years ago. Of course it's possible for a group of students to not hold a majority of the jobs, the past doesn't suddenly disappear and reboot.

it's all an elaborate scheme to #MeToo'd as much males as possible. it's self-perpetuating.

it ain't because of nepotism, no siree

source: dude trust me

Attached: 1528737762511.png (210x230, 30K)

White men are literally the only demographic that doesn't benefit from nepotism anymore.

Due to the way the sentence is written, a completely viable takeaway is that 70% of a single arts college student body hold 25% percent of the jobs in the entire animation industry.

Funny how feminists always complain about female representation in politics but never mention Thatcher one of the best prime ministers of the uk

>Talent
>Passion
>Hardwork

Three things women lack to be able to get anywhere in the industry.

>it ain't because of nepotism,
As a matter of fact, it isn't.

>Why are American feminists unhappy with female representation in American politics? Look at this British politician!!
Don't you think that's rather the point? Why is America lagging behind Britain in this regard? You should think longer than a couple of seconds before you write your posts.

You forgot
>intelligence

It's true though. You'd know if you actually achieved high education and had a job.

Female animation students in general tend to go after character design jobs and there aren't as many in the industry

How many are going there with the goal of furthering a career? How many are just going because you're "supposed to" go to college? Colleges and universities are loaded with people who have no motive for going, regardless of subject.

Have you considered the fact that CalArts is not the only animation college on Earth?

or that animation isn't the only job in cartoon work?

When did /r9k/ take over this board, jesus.
>New star wars trailer dropped this morning
Oh that about adds up.

>lagging behind Britain
What the fuck? Hillary Clinton was a presidential candidate and if it wasn't for the electoral college she would have won. There are more women in the house of representatives than ever before yet leftists still complain about it. AOC and Ilhan Omar are constantly getting media attention

So should women get 50% of the jobs?

50/50? shit son that's actual equality.

did you figure that out on your own?

25% of our legislative branch is female, with our first female representative predating women having the right to vote. In comparison, that's slightly less than the UK's 29% female membership, and two UK parties use all-women shortlists to guarantee female candidates for some districts.

The weak preach equality.

>If it wasn't for the thing that determines the whole political campaign she should have won
I sure hope you're trolling

The strong preach liberty
>t. faggots trying to take away the liberty of free men to own and enslave people

Attached: 1 HijE4-6mMeLS7BHxDayk4Q.jpg (634x503, 102K)

honestly this entire thread smells like bullshit, like i dropped out of art school but even i know all my roomies didn't necessarily get the jobs they where trained for, like we had a guy that wanted too be a concept artist and he currently works at a fucking tattoo parlor. i know a chick that wen't too for animation and currently is floor manager at a plastic recycling plant that kind of shit isn't uncommon.

equality of outcome is tiranny. equality of opportunity is freedom. you're preaching the former

has there ever been a single industry, company or hobby that didn´t suffer massively as a result of women being pushed into leadership roles?

I hope you don't think Hilary Clinton's votes were because she was a woman, and not because the Down Syndrome Mafioso candidate on the other side seemed that much worse an alternative to most.

that's equity, not equality. fool

Right on Jordan Peterson!
Parrot- I mean PREACH!
/)

Since people aren't equal, liberty leads inevitably to inequality.

it's all about having the right contacts in the end anyway

he's right in that regard though

explain

If really knew what that meant he'd be a commie.
>Since people aren't equal, liberty leads inevitably to inequality.
The rhetoric of a true fascist.

the toy industry

Attached: 1546020578053.png (800x445, 382K)

Should we force every single job that exists to be 50% males and 50% females? What about LGBT? Or ethnic minorities? Or disabled people? Should jobs have quotas for them as well? And since the demographics are constantly changing, shouldn't we change the percentages for the quotas every single year?

How can such a system even be meritocratic since a huge number of employees are chosen based on their gender/race/sexual orientation and on their merit?

the opposition to Thatcher had more to do with her policies and her rather abrasive personal style than anything else.

What is amusing is that the left can claim to hate Thatcher for her politics and yet decry any criticism of Obama or Hilary as racism or sexism.

You think all people are equal? Explain height then

you know, a little logic can solve the real problem hidden in your outlandish scenario.

but logic is clearly not your intention.

Arguing with commies instead of hanging them is a mistake desu.

nigga what fucking non-menial job requires one to be tall.

Stop being such a passive aggressive bitch and tell what the problem is

>For every 2.5 inches in height resulting from a man’s genetics, his annual income increases by nearly £1600, while heavier women lose out on £3000 a year
theguardian.com/science/2016/mar/08/genetic-study-shows-mens-height-and-womens-weight-drive-earning-power

The NBA has an average height of 6’6”

>correlation is causality now
remember global warming is caused by the disapearances of pirates in the indian seas

The most telling thing about Thatcher is that not only was Labour unable to effectively challenge her for a decade, they weren't able to unseat the Tories for years after she was out of power.

There's a difference between forcing equality of outcome and opportunity like the other user said. If a group faces obvious barriers that make true equal opportunity impossible inevitably that power balance is only going to widen because of the initial disadvantage.

That's why they have quotas in India, because a fuckawful caste system for the last 4000 years has literally kept a whole class of people out of jobs as cops, scientists, judges, politicians ect and where's the liberty in a society that has 1 class of people control and rule over the other who have no say?

We're talking about literal studies and bias thats being counteracted with a system
The context of the hiring is the important part. The context of the hiring is the important part - You can't say this main demographic are being hurt when the reason they're doing this in the first place is because they literally statistically get the job anyway despite equal merit. Cause they found that if you have two people on equal standing, but one's white and the other's black, the white person gets the job, same for giving two identical applications but changing the gender from male to female, the male wins out a statistical majority of the time.

This has all been proven, it's not like the idea of quotas would be fair in a vacuum. The whole idea of them is to correct a systematic imbalance so we no longer need to implement them to start with.

Of course people aren't.
But trying to fix a problem in the opposite direction for 1 advantage is retarded.

If someone is a midget you expect them to have like a highchair or seating boost right? What's stupid is this logic of 'Well this 8' tall person really really wants to get an even better view, he should get the midgets chair. People aren't equal, why shouldn't be entitled to it? He wanted it afterall.' The 8' person doesn't need that.

Explain that shit then, what they're saying sounds like bs to me.

Equality doesn't equate to liberty, idiot. People aren't treated equally because those who put more work into being better ARE better. That's just a fact. You're jealous of some millionaire walking around with the finer things in life? That's because despite your stupid notions they actually gave a damn and stopped played keyboard warrior in their spare time -- made something of themselves.

And drawing a comparison to someone not being treated as well at work to niggers in chains is disrespectful to say the least. Who the fuck are you playing mouthpiece to people who've genuinely suffered? You're some sheltered idiot from Idaho that's due at their high school in about two hours.

it's based on who you know and how you dont bring in politics until after you get the job. Also try making friends with guys instead of getting pissed off at how white they are.

>Equality doesn't equate to liberty, idiot.
No shit, did you need your daddy JP just to teach you that?

>People aren't treated equally because those who put more work into being better ARE better. That's just a fact.
And this is just horseshit.
Communism acknowledges that a person who works more and has a better job (a doctor or lawyer) should be paid more than a farmer or lazier person. What's outright dumbassery is to think a job that involves basically serfdom makes you literally, 1000x times better (In terms of net work, profit) than someone who actually works.

But you were raised to be a good goy under the system and lick some fatpig's asshole all your life, so what are you going to learn anyway.

>Who the fuck are you playing mouthpiece to people who've genuinely suffered?
Lol, there are factories in Indonesia that literally chain their workers up to keep them from leaving or escaping and are paid penny wages, why would you pretend capitalistic practices don't lead to anything other than literal slavery? And I'm the misinformed one?
If your boss had their way (That's pretty generous of me to assume you've ever had one) they'd keep you in a warehouse 24/7 fed off dogshit if they could line their pockets like the blood mines in Africa.

>Well this 8' tall person really really wants to get an even better view, he should get the midgets chair.
I never said something like that. There shouldn't be any regulation favouring the midget or the tall guy
>People aren't equal, why shouldn't be entitled to it
Correct, you aren't entitled to anything.

There comes a point though where trying to rebalance things for equal/proportionate representation doesn’t work. As a direct counterpoint for your gender example, Australia had to pull a blind hiring program where the employer wouldn’t be able to tell gender at all because they ended hiring more men. At that point would it still be right to maintain a quota for women when there was factual proof that the man was a better candidate?

I'm happy just gassing the midget for being a genetic aberration. You probably think it should be allowed to pass on its defective genes.

There you go, arguing with commies instead of hanging them again.

hey janny just nuke the fucking thread instead of weeding through the reports.

>There shouldn't be any regulation favouring the midget or the tall guy
Laissez-faire is nice and all. But it's a fantasy.
The reality of our world is the tall guy gets to stand atop a dozen midgets heads and has big fat laws stroking him off.
>Correct, you aren't entitled to anything.
Unless I was born with a rich trust fund daddy and get to put my name on a company I've never worked for. Then I'm entitled to hundreds of thousands of people's profits by financial law.

>At that point would it still be right to maintain a quota for women when there was factual proof that the man was a better candidate?

Of course not.
I literally stated in the replied post the idea of quotas is to fix an unbalance so they're no longer needed. I wouldn't expect random asians to get a quota for colleges or something where they're pretty well represented just for the sake of it.

misogyny

You're an edgy psychopath raised on the internet who LARPs to thor, we get it.

If 1 out of 4 employed animators are women, wouldn't that explain the 1 out of 4 cartoon characters that are misandrist lesbian mary sues?

>why would you pretend capitalistic practices don't lead to anything other than literal slavery?
Because from a factual standpoint capitalism has improved the lives of millions by either elevating them out of poverty or allowing them access to goods and services by bringing down prices. The extreme centralization of power that any attempt at communism requires and the idea that a person doesn’t control their own output/property because it belongs to the community always leads to planned slaughter and oppression.

>The reality of our world is the tall guy gets to stand atop a dozen midgets heads and has big fat laws stroking him off.

I'm a tall guy. Why shouldn't I want to keep my power?

So what percentage of animators are furry animal people or talking dogs then?

>Then I'm entitled to hundreds of thousands of people's profits by financial law.
The company that facilitated those profits and employed the people in the first place belongs to the guy’s dad, why shouldn’t he be able to give it to his kid if he wants to since he made it?

the other 75% I'd assume

Women make poor leaders usually

>Laissez-faire is nice and all. But it's a fantasy.
It worked fine in the 19th century and lifted millions out of poverty
>big fat laws stroking him off
Which laws? I said there shouldn't be any laws favouring the tall of the short guys
>hundreds of thousands of people's profits
Oh no how dare parents want the best for their children. Besides the vast majority of rich kids lose their parents wealth
money.com/money/3925308/rich-families-lose-wealth/

If you had your way, there would be no natural selection, so humans would always remain ugly, dumb, and miserable. You would rather every one be worse off than some people being better off. Tell me, should people not be allowed to do genetic engineering to boost IQ or beauty?

You all are insane.
And seem to lack common sense.
When you compete for a job you dont always win.
These statistics dont take into account that these men are of different races as well.
Not to mention many women end up taking the family life. They dont have to but some do. Then you have some women who have dropped out of school, then you have few who follow through with their degree.
There are so many factors and it's all complicated in each situation but all you guys want is a simple explanation to freak out over.
Do I need to remind you that there are less job openings than there is school enrollment? Just because you went to school doesnt mean there is a job waiting for you when you are done. It's called life and you are wasting it over being upset than just moving on.

Attached: 1550301373699.png (668x649, 289K)

>has improved the lives of millions
Technological progress you mean.
The only difference between the capital and communal model is you actually have to work to get paid, you don't acquire money for the centralization of business interest. It's a de-centralization, atleast when a dictatorial government doesn't intervene.

>the idea that a person doesn’t control their own output/property because it belongs to the community always leads to planned slaughter and oppression.

No one in a genuine communist system is taking away your ebay account or little cornerstore. You just cannot own a million people's labour because you signed your name on a factory/brand or something, that's barely a step up from the barbarism of Feudalism. Even in soviet Russia managers and company owners were only made like 7-10x times their fodder employees lower on the rung, not tens of millions of dollars for this idea of 'Ownership'.

>Like ew, why do ugly people and retards have to exist?
>Why cannot I live in my autistic utopia where everyone is literally just a clone of me? Why cannot I turn everyone into copies of me? The world would be so much better off
Spare me if I don't care to reply to a eugenicist and piece of shit human being.

user your trying to factual against a bunch of faggots more interested in getting in internet fights than actually giving a shit about the topic at hand.

>Technological progress you mean
Which is created by entrepreneurs like inventors or R&D departments
>No one in a genuine communist system is taking away your ebay account or little cornerstore
Will you take away Contrapoints' youtube channel? He/she/it is making about half a million a year from patreon alone.
>You just cannot own a million people's labour because you signed your name on a factory/brand or something
Oh so you think company owners just get a nice cheque every month without doing anything at all? You obviously never run a business.
>Even in soviet Russia managers and company owners were only made like 7-10x times their fodder employees lower on the rung, not tens of millions of dollars for this idea of 'Ownership'.
And how did that work out for them?

>It worked fine in the 19th century
With what, Company Towns?
>and lifted millions out of poverty
FDR did that.
>Oh no how dare parents want the best for their children.
There should be regulation against this sort of inheritance for the same reason a politician cannot hand their job over to their child by whim if they feel like it halfway. Kings and nobles are bad, we went over this circa 17th century.

Don't be insane. You are so enslaved to your egalitarian dream that you would be okay with depriving our descendants of a beautiful future if it means not hiring the fee-fees alive today. Your dream is objectively counter-utilitaran and immoral.

>The reality of our world is the tall guy gets to stand atop a dozen midgets heads and has big fat laws stroking him off.
that's fantasy world allright.

Not hurting* I mean.

Which is why men have the upper hand. Women are the most catty, petty cunts on the planet.

> entrepreneurs like inventors or R&D departments
Always something made by a mass group of people, who never see the kind of dimes for their work. Do you think Steven Jobs or Tim Cook sat down and did 100000 hours of engineering and innovation that NASA put in for the pieces required for an Iphone?

Who got the money in the end?

>Will you take away Contrapoints' youtube channel? He/she/it is making about half a million a year from patreon alone.
Those are literal donations and people are paying them directly. Why would that be wrong?
Being rich isn't bad in itself. Being rich entirely off exploiting other people by coercion of resources and death by poverty is harrowing and shouldn't be allowed in a world that acknowledges human rights but is fine with the kind of wage slavery in 3rd world countries where people are herded like animals neck-to-neck on an assembly line.

>Oh so you think company owners just get a nice cheque every month without doing anything at all?
Do you really think the managerial decisions that tell people what to do are worth the same in value as the work that countless people actually do? Like by thousand fold?

The numbers don't add up.

>And how did that work out for them?
They went from a 3rd world country to having a space program and entered the modern world and overthrew a violent aristocracy. The same cannot be said for the 50+ unnamed African countries who have tried capitalism, but found themselves on the exploited end of it.

>With what, Company Towns?
The UK had unprecedented wealth during that time and all because of capitalism
>FDR did that
FDR is the worst president of the US who with his idiotic policies prolonged the depression
>There should be regulation against this sort of inheritance
So you're a commie that hates parents for providing what's best for their children.

Attached: End-of-absolute-Poverty-in-rich-countries-2.png (3000x2100, 331K)

>No one in a genuine communist system is taking away your ebay account or little cornerstore. You just cannot own a million people's labour because you signed your name on a factory/brand or something, that's barely a step up from the barbarism of Feudalism.
So if my “little cornerstore” starts getting massive amounts of profit because I came up with an idea and implemented it am I suddenly not deserving of the money it brings in because I hired people? The value you assign to the labor of the workers wouldn’t exist in the first place if I hadn’t come up with the product or service, the fact that in a communist system that would be taken away and redistributed is where it fails and capitalism succeeds because it maintains the right to it. And you can’t argue that labor itself has inherent value because value is assigned/attributed to something based on desirability, i.e. if labor had intrinsic value then a man who pushes rocks up a hill all day would have be paid for his labor, even though no one asked or wanted him to do it in the first place.

I wish I could say you were wrong, but you're exactly right. The worst enemy of women's success isn't men, it's other women dragging each other down crabs-in-the-bucket style. If you're in a workplace with a lot of women, you see it every single fucking day with their two-faced bitching behind each others' backs and sowing animosity towards each other.

You earned that money in your cornerstore because you worked there. You didn't work at a store 1000 miles away where you paid another manager to to run a separate store and are making bank off wageslavers you never even met and are just collecting the check, so no you don't deserve that money. Where the middle ground lies is all just semantics.

And the value wouldn't exist? That's an arrogant assumption, the value lies in people, not commodities. An engineer or scientist who quits their job isn't removing any value from the workforce or anywhere, since it's inherent in themselves as a person. The knowledge, capability to work, physical and mental labor. It doesn't belong to the company, saying otherwise is a cruel posit of collectivism.

And your analogy falls flat because you tried to describe an example 'no one would want.'
If I come across a person who can push up said rock, and another guy who just kinda had the idea to push up a rock and told person A to do it, why would the latter individual have more inherent value than the guy who actually does it?

Its the same in art schools in general. Most attendees these days are female. Why male artists become more successful is the simple reason that they attend the school because they're autistic enough to do it everyday. I know during my animation school years there was 21 students on the first year, mostly people sitting on Facebook all day. 2nd year when short movie projects started, there was 8 of us left. 3rd year only 3 of us graduated, 1 woman, 2 men. Everyone else had quit because the animation process was too time-consuming for them and they changed schools.

>Who got the money in the end?
What the fuck are you on about? Inventors get money for what they created. Or do you think they don't get enough money?
>exploiting other people by coercion
What coercion does a company use?
>people are herded like animals neck-to-neck on an assembly line.
Have you ever actually thought why people work in these factories? The alternative is working in rice fields all day and getting payed with just a bowl of rice. Sweatshops might be very tough jobs compared to the ones white liberals do in western countries but they are the best they can get in their shithole countries which is why they chose to work there. If you think you can do better then go to these shitholes and start your own commie co-op.
>Do you really think the managerial decisions that tell people
That's not the only thing they do but I wouldn't expect someone who never run a business to understand. Yes the market has decided that the McDonalds CEO is worth much more than some 16 year old that just flips burgers, if you don't like it feel free to start your own commie co-op
>They went from a 3rd world country to having a space program
>defending the Soviet Union
At this point it's not even worth continuing but whatever
>space program
With the help of nazi scientist. But it matters not that they went to space when their own people were starving.
>violent aristocracy
Yeah let's slaughter those damn kulaks! We're better than them
>50+ unnamed African countries who have tried capitalism
What? Most of them have mixed economies or are marxist shitholes. The few that have relatively free economies like Botswana are doing quite well

>The UK had unprecedented wealth during that time and all because of capitalism
And who owned that wealth?
It's ridiculous to cite the 19th century UK as an example of a country that grew 'wealthy' when in terms of distribution the country entered unprecedented poverty, when you don't factor in the collective coffers of 1% of the population. If that's your idea of wealthy, China must be a godsend for financial mobility.

>Always something made by a mass group of people, who never see the kind of dimes for their work. Do you think Steven Jobs or Tim Cook sat down and did 100000 hours of engineering and innovation that NASA put in for the pieces required for an Iphone?

No, they just made it possible for those people to collaborate successfully enough to get the work done in the first place. Steve Jobs specifically made sure the company ran smoothly enough to provide the money and facilities for those people to work on the innovations, which means that without him nothing would have gotten done, as well as marketing the everloving shit out of Apple to create the brand recognition and prestige that warrants the value it has as a company.

>Do you really think the managerial decisions that tell people what to do are worth the same in value as the work that countless people actually do? Like by thousand fold?

Yes, because again without the managerial work to coordinate all the resources needed by those workers to actually perform any lab out there wouldn’t be any labor at all. And just because it’s grunt work doesn’t mean it’s more valuable, if I need a holes dug and have the option to either hire a crew of 10 or 1 man with an excavator does a hole suddenly become more valuable because it was dug by crew and therefore had more labor invested in it?

>the value lies in people, not commodities
Explain auctions

>the country entered unprecedented poverty
Complete fucking lie and here's the evidence to prove you wrong you fucking tankie

Attached: Screen_Shot_2014-12-12_at_10.34.38_AM.0.jpg (748x607, 105K)

Finally, a sane person on Yea Forums. Also, what about the female animators and mangaka in Japan that routinely blow American creations out of the water, even with their higher standards?

>What the fuck are you on about? Inventors get money for what they created.
"Created."
Yes, I'm sure Steven woke up one day and with his 300 IQ invented centuries worth of technology overnight the same way Thomas Edison did in his lab. Are you this naive? Most of the cybernetic technology we have to day is due to various government agencies and programs working rigorously in the background.

>What coercion does a company use?
In 19th century Company towns, you'd starve because the currency they assign is the only one used by the stores, also owned. If you didn't sign your loyalty you'd starve and be ousted out.
Now imagine a company town that covers the glove. If the idea of passive coercion is foreign to you maybe look up a history book- look up Oliver Twist for all I care.

>Have you ever actually thought why people work in these factories?
Someone has to work the factories, in order for them to work.
The same cannot be said for someone actually owning the factory, and therefore not having to work.
>Yes the market has decided that the McDonalds CEO
The same market run by people like the McDonalds CEO, who make the decisions?
>but I wouldn't expect someone who never run a business to understand.
Yeah, tell me how hard those massively-laborious investors on Sharktank spend 15 minute calls to get ownership of companies that employ tens of thousands of people and get paid for all the work said people do. What a toiling bunch.

>Most of them have mixed economies or are marxist shitholes.
Name an African country that's marxist.
>Shitholes
Ah, the Idaho comment from earlier is all making sense.

There's a lot that's not so bad about capitalism. The only major difference in a communism system is just the size of the paychecks of the workers and their owners - the number of zeroes, oppressive inequality ect. Balancing that check is literally all I'm advocating for and all your rigorously resisting against, for some reason.

hey, want to know something funny?

Most animation media production is basically a big network of tax fraud. Its just another tentacle in the fine arts game of speculative investment. Most people in that world are rich women, because it's basically a side hobby for socialites, Be glad animation isn't fucked even more because of this.

Attached: NOIDED.jpg (687x916, 409K)

>Yes, because again without the managerial work to coordinate all the resources needed by those workers to actually perform any lab out there wouldn’t be any labor at all

So you think all those people with their skills, energy, passion and intelligence would just sit around all day and none of them would innovate with what's been done? That Steve Jobs is so valuable that his organization alone equates to all the people he's herding? There's a reason Unions in the west are so corrupt with this kind of mindset.

How do you know someone like Mark Zuckerberg wasn't such a rando-person who could've worked at a big company that invented Not-Facebook, but had too much time on his hands and decided to make Facebook instead? Steve Jobs giving a few facilities to people and marketing something isn't the same as the kind of insane scientific work needed to actually create an Iphone. Their intellectual labour is more far valuable.

Maybe it should be different for Artistic creations, like a Novel or ContraPoints videos but in terms of labour there shouldn't be an oppressive managerial class. Israel had publicly-owned sweatshops and factories where people worked, earned tons more money and thrived doing p much the same thing except they got to keep their profits. You may think they'd fall apart and be disorganized, but they weren't.

>And just because it’s grunt work doesn’t mean it’s more valuable
The hole isn't anymore valuable. But that value doesn't transfer over like A>B>C>D. If you tell a guy to tell a guy to tell a guy to tell 10 guys to dig that, how is what you did more valuable than the 10 guys who dug it? It's like kinetic energy, it should just be a net loss overtime.

I'm not even saying a Manager shouldn't be paid more than their employees.
It's the corporate model where no value is added because you're just a Manager of a Manager of 10 other Managers and what you do is effectively feudalism disguised as bureaucracy at that point.

>Not to mention many women end up taking the family life. They dont have to but some do.
Animation work is mostly a lot of work for relatively crappy pay for the amount of skill required. And most women in the workforce tend to get spouses, marry and have kids somewhere along 25-40 years. And a lot of animation job descriptions aren't very good at sustaining the family, its an ideal profession for that quiet determined person who stares the screen and draws stuff 8-12 hours a day for noodles.

>You earned that money in your cornerstore because you worked there. You didn't work at a store 1000 miles away where you paid another manager to to run a separate store and are making bank off wageslavers you never even met and are just collecting the check, so no you don't deserve that money.

If I own the store/brand then why shouldn’t I get profit from their labor, seeing as they are only even able to generate value that they do because of the resources I provide in this case the store, the idea of the product, and presumably the brand recognition?

>And the value wouldn't exist? That's an arrogant assumption, the value lies in people, not commodities.

No, the value wouldn’t exist because value is tied to desirability of the commodity; if the scientist or engineer spent years designing a machine to smear shit on themselves no one would pay them because no one wanted such a thing.

>If I come across a person who can push up said rock, and another guy who just kinda had the idea why would the latter individual have more inherent value than the guy who actually does it?

Neither would have any inherent value, my point was that labor doesn’t have an inherent value because value is assigned. If someone was willing to pay to have those rocks pushed then pushing them now has value and the rock pusher is now performing valuable labor. The idea man wouldn’t have value in that case because the value was assigned to the service of rock pushing. What you keep ignoring is that value is not tied to labor itself; if the idea man built a desirable reputation for his brand of rock pushing services then his services would have more value than another rock pushing service with identical labor but a worse reputation. The brand value then becomes a resource that he owns and by hiring someone else to push rocks he is allowing them to use the resource to add value to their labor, which is what entitles him to the profits/gives value to his contribution.

And the 25% that do get jobs, are asian women who are competent in animation. White american and black americans are fucking retarded for some reason.

>Most of the cybernetic technology we have to day is due to various government
wake the fuck up, kid. This is getting fucking unhealthy and dangerous, for you, for us.

Maybe they suck at it.

Not a lot of skill required for most animation-related jobs in the US.

Sorry but Asians don't go for arts degrees, the arts degrees are majority white women.

>Most of the cybernetic technology we have to day is due to various government agencies and programs working
You better back that with evidence
>In 19th century Company towns, you'd starve because the currency they assign is the only one used by the stores
You wouldn't starve and no one forced you to go and work there. Also you make it sound like every town in the US was a company town when in fact at their peak they housed about 3% of the population. So it's not like these companies had or have a monopoly forcing workers to work only there
>look up a history book
Which backs what I'm saying that capitalism lifted millions out of poverty look here>Oliver Twist
The kid ends up working for a criminal after he leaves the workhouse. Which is incidentally what happens to kids today when bleeding hearts demand that third world countries implement child labour laws. They end up working for in farms, engaging in criminal activities or even worse engage in prostitution because they aren't allowed anymore to work in factories.
>The same cannot be said for someone actually owning the factory, and therefore not having to work.
The owner is the one that bring the capital, manages the logistics, buys the supplies, decides who to hire, etc and ultimately the one that takes all the risks since at the end of every month it isn't guaranteed that he will profit or how much he will profit.
>The same market run by people like the McDonalds CEO, who make the decisions?
The market consists of everyone the consumers included. If consumers feel that the McDonalds CEO earns too much they can simply stop buying McDonalds burgers or the burger flippers can quit McDonalds in protest.

>Yeah, tell me how hard those massively-laborious investors on Sharktank spend 15 minute calls to get ownership of companies that employ tens of thousands of people and get paid for all the work said people do
So you think that depending on how physically hard a person's job is that should determine their wage? That's idiotic.
>Name an African country that's marxist
Zimbabwe has a lot of idiotic marxist policies
>Idaho comment
You're not arguing with only one person
>The only major difference in a communism system is just the size of the paychecks of the workers and their owners - the number of zeroes, oppressive inequality ect.
Completely wrong. A communist system attempts to centrally plan the economy while in a laissez-faire system the state doesn't intervene in the economy. And from looking at history communism or socialism or whatever you want to call it has failed again and again.
>Balancing
Another word for state intervention
>your rigorously resisting against, for some reason
Because laissez-faire capitalism is the best system we have that make people overall wealthier and more prosperous

>No, the value wouldn’t exist because value is tied to desirability of the commodity

You must be joking m8.
This is basic communist shit 101.
Literally Commodity Fetishism, which is one of the most basic concepts there is.

You don't see how valuable people are because you only see the end product of their labour. That's the literal manipulation of capitalism that Marx talks about- to YOU a Nike shoe or Iphone is only valuable for an object that you fetishize. You don't know how many hundreds of workers had to suffer to make that, from the craddle of the earth to the graves of the workers involved. If you don't understand a concept so simple, then you're a marvelous example of how capitalism has fooled you to support an oppressive ideology that values objects and commodities over the welfare of people.

Yeah, we had a similar thing centuries ago with feudal states except rather than 'brands' it was just sovereign entities. What you're positing as value of 'reputation' is literally just capitalist dogma, in the reality of circumstances the most famous "I tell you what to do" man in the world shouldn't more valuable than the guy who does it - That's like thinking a world famous psychic is more valuable for your health than a trained surgeon because they'll get a bigger brand/audience. That's just a built-in system of exploitation and fraud which can only lead to an amoral society.

>The owner is the one that bring the capital, manages the logistics, buys the supplies, decides who to hire, etc and ultimately the one that takes all the risks
Tell to that to the self-owned public factories and businesses in Israel and the eastern-blocs of Europe. Without any owner somehow, the labour remained and most still brought in money, handled their resources, ect.
I'm tired of this debate, so here's the link to
>You better back that with evidence
thebolditalic.com/love-your-iphone-dont-thank-apple-thank-the-us-government-4f702dd7117e

>I wouldn't expect random asians to get a quota for colleges or something where they're pretty well represented just for the sake of it.
Affirmative action end up hurting blacks though. Colleges are forced to enrol blacks that otherwise they wouldn't have been able to enrol in these colleges because of their low education. This makes the blacks to find the colleges quite difficult and they end up dropping out. Meanwhile those that barely manage to graduate have another problem as well because companies know that these blacks get into the colleges without the proper education so they're less willing to hire black graduates since they aren't as qualified as whites or asians thus increasing black unemployment. All could have been avoided by getting rid of affirmative action and allowing black parents to choose for themselves where to send their kids to get educated

I'm going to conclude here with this idea
>The market consists of everyone the consumers included. If consumers feel that the McDonalds CEO earns too much they can simply stop buying McDonalds burgers or the burger flippers can quit McDonalds in protest.
Why would consumers stop buying McDonalds burgers if there was a CEO or not? Would any of the automated crap taste different if a burger flipper got paid 12$ an hour or 30$? Would it matter to you?

Your line of reasoning of course would be "Well without the CEO the burger/foodchain couldn't exist for me to try!" Which experiments in socialism have shown untrue- the Israel public company examples I mentioned. And the idea that the Manager performs such a deed for the product?

That's the thing about automation, where our world has headed something as simple as a burger or the products that exist now would easily exist without managerial bureaucrats. We'd still have assembly lines, and technology is increasingly taking the place of any real 'labour value' that actually creates the product. Thus less labour is needed, even tho more profit is created.

You'd think this would be an incentive to increase the living standards of employees, but the last few decades has shown this isn't the case. Would you feel comfortable if AI were invented tomorrow and CEOs purchasing them to own 100% of the profit with no need for human intervention, while leaving humanity jobless?

That's the kind of thing Marx spoke about and where we're heading rn.

>A communist system attempts to centrally plan the economy

Not correct, btw.
This was a Soviet amendment and other failed communist countries failed with that model aswell. Marx never really spoke about a state-planned economy,

A 'true communist' country esposuing how it was conceived would be more laissez-faire than you think.

Except for regulations and yeah, the idea that you have to pay your employees a sensible wage and not virtual-slavery.

>self-owned public factories and businesses in Israel
Good for them, I even encouraged you to start your own commie co-op. I'm not against these sort of factories. What I'm against is forcing everyone to turn their factory into a public owned one or face jail time or even death. In my capitalist system you're allowed to start any type of company you want. In your communist system I would probably get shot for spreading "reactionary" ideas.

Also that's just one example of government funding. You claimed "most of the cybernetic tech" which is an outrageous claim

>You claimed "most of the cybernetic tech" which is an outrageous claim

I mean computers were literally just turning-machines used by the government to crack NAZI codes under a century ago, then further innovated on into binary computing machines. So most of it fundamentally

>this single variable will ensure all equality

Attached: 1504977448088.jpg (500x490, 53K)

>Why would consumers stop buying McDonalds burgers if there was a CEO or not?
there wouldn't be burgers without a CEO. I what fucking fantasy land do you leave? You don't even understand the basic of your own society. Your human study diploma made you a soldier, not a thinker, and it shows.

If they really wanna tackle inequality they oughta address how Cal Arts annual tuition is now close to $50,000 a year, almost all but guaranteeing that it's only affordable to by 1% of the population except those who lucked out with incredible scholarships.

hey shes pretty cute

Why are we doing this on Yea Forums? Seems better to do it in /his/ or better yet /pol/.
Seriously guys can we just stop bumping this? I don’t wanna care about and it’s making me feel that Politics in general are getting really tiresome.

Maybe, just maybe, calarts isn't the entire industry?

I guess you're right, I will go to a better thread

>Why would consumers stop buying McDonalds
My point is that consumers vote with their wallet. If McDonalds does something that is considered wrong by the consumers they can simply stop buying/working for McDonalds and therefore pressure them to change what they did that was perceived as wrong
>Your line of reasoning of course would be Well without the CEO the burger couldn't exist for me to try
Read again here>automation
Oh boy the same argument made by the luddites two hundred years ago was debunked numerous times yet fools like you are still using it. Tell me should we ban all vehicles? I mean goods and products then would have to be transported on the backs of humans and that surely will create millions of new jobs thus ending unemployment.

That's the type of argument you're using and it's complete trash. You're forgetting that while a machine can replace 100 burger flippers, that machine needs to be constructed before shipped to a McDonalds. If McDonalds wants to start using burger flipping machines then the demand for such machines increases dramatically which means new jobs are created for people that built these machines, for people that transport these machines, for people that gather the supplies required for the construction of these machines, for people that figure out the logistics of this machine and so on. All these are new jobs that are created by McDonalds deciding to start using machines. Also since now it's cheaper for McDonalds to produce burgers (assuming the machines are cheaper than workers which might not be always true) they can lower the price them in order to compete with Burger King. Which means consumers are buying burgers at a lower cost which means they get to keep more money in their pockets which means they can now spend it more elsewhere like buying for example toys which in turn in order to satisfy this new demand for toys, toy companies have to increase their production which means more new jobs created

Dude they literally predicted and responded to your reply before you made it, did you read on thru? This is some kind of weak fantasy I think. Go back to what you/user said earlier about the reputation or brand being valuable.
According to the lines here, someone famous and well known enough that people would pay millions for their product would be good right even if they're just there to bring in money right? Moreso than if workers decided to do it themselves. Even if it were the exact same product like a lemonade stand people would flock to the brand and not the workers. But here's where I think this logic falls apart, in a shared-profit system this would definitely be good. The workers would want the famous brand to earn the most money and do better for their business. The problem is equivocal capitalist distribution where the brand guy takes 99.99% of everything as part of the deal, why do the workers care if the Stand succeeds or earns more money not?

If they're agreeing to getting paid 10 cents and the stand makes 10$, 1000$, 10 million$, and yet they still make 10 cents fixed regardless (10 cents to 100$, 10 cents to 100000$, 10 cents to a billion$)- whereas the brand guy gets paid everything extra that they don't, it doesn't benefit them at all. They might not make as much total without the brand guy but since their already wages are fixed with him, in this dilemma they're better off with making just 100$ than being extremely successful and yet not being allowed any of that success,only getting 10 cents per Million. You could say something something business longevity, but this is a heavy and not-proven assumption that they wouldn't be off just fine without him. And whose to say he couldn't one day decide to run off with the money (liquidate the company) anyway? It's all economical hashdaggery.

1/2
>Literally Commodity Fetishism, which is one of the most basic concepts there is.
>You don't see how valuable people are because you only see the end product of their labour.
You and I both know I was talking the economic value of people, not the spiritual/moral value of their souls/beings so don't try to weasel your way into some moral high-ground by conflating one with the other. My point remains the same, the labor of an individual does not have an inherent economic value, the economic value of the labor is instead tied directly to the value placed on the product/services provided by their labor. An engineer who builds machines that no one wants is not performing labor with an ECONOMIC VALUE because there is no ECONOMIC VALUE in the product, the SPIRITUAL/MORAL VALUE of the man is unaffected by this because they are not linked.

>That's the literal manipulation of capitalism that Marx talks about- to YOU a Nike shoe or Iphone is only valuable for an object that you fetishize. You don't know how many hundreds of workers had to suffer to make that, from the craddle of the earth to the graves of the workers involved.
An Iphone/Nike shoe only has ECONOMIC VALUE precisely because they are objects of desire, Iphones have fewer features and less convenience than Android phones while Nikes are no more durable or comfortable than any other sport shoe brand. The suffering of the people who built them neither adds nor subtracts from the desirability, I'm not saying that as my opinion but as an observation of public sentiment seeing as both companies/brands are going strong, meaning that the ECONOMIC VALUE of the product remains the same.

TELL ME THIS BATMAN: HOW COME 70% PERCENT OF WOMEN GO TO CALARTS, BUT ONLY GET 25% OF THE JOBS?

Attached: 63.jpg (1543x1029, 196K)

>The suffering of the people who built them neither adds nor subtracts from the desirability, I'm not saying that as my opinion but as an observation of public sentiment seeing as both companies/brands are going strong, meaning that the ECONOMIC VALUE of the product remains the same.

And thus, why capitalism is amoral. Thank you for spelling it out so basically.

And everything you're saying about the lie of Commodity Fetishism and people having no inherent labour value against commodities has all been argued to the death, to the point where there's been books written on it centuries ago.

2/2
>Yeah, we had a similar thing centuries ago with feudal states except rather than 'brands' it was just sovereign entities. What you're positing as value of 'reputation' is literally just capitalist dogma, in the reality of circumstances the most famous "I tell you what to do" man in the world shouldn't more valuable than the guy who does it -
I will repeat myself again: LABOR HAS NO INHERENT ECONOMIC VALUE, ITS ECONOMIC VALUE COMES FROM THE DESIRABILITY OF THE PRODUCT. A manager has more ECONOMIC VALUE than the laborer under him because his product/service is more desirable. That desirability can come from either its effect of increasing productivity or the relative scarcity seeing as the education and training needed to successfully manage a work crew to effectively perform a job is less common than the ability to dig a hole. Because of this a worker's labor has less ECONOMIC VALUE.

>That's like thinking a world famous psychic is more valuable for your health than a trained surgeon because they'll get a bigger brand/audience. That's just a built-in system of exploitation and fraud which can only lead to an amoral society.
Your analogy falls flat because you ignored my point about identical labor; a psychic and surgeon are not performing identical labor with an identical product, therefore their ECONOMIC VALUES are different. If two surgeons perform equal labor with an equal end result then the one with a better reputation will have more ECONOMICAL VALUE because his reputation makes his services more desirable and therefore gives his labor more ECONOMIC VALUE.

Alex Hirsch said it in a stream that many of his fellow students wasted their time partying and lazying around playing vidya or getting baked, without finishing the projects assigned by the academy or building connections or a decent portfolio; so everyone passes but only a few enter the industry, aka those who didn't waste their time

>but never mention Thatcher one of the best prime ministers of the uk
About the only nice thing I can say about her is that she made the trains run on time.

So like Mussolini....

Allowing the continued existence of rat fuck conservatives rather than forcing them to kneel in a courtyard and executing them with a small pistol is the real mistake.

>cuck of the creek inage
>actually believes in the glass ceiling
Fucking figures

Someone is mad that the tides are turning and lefties are starting to get popped.

Seething. RWDS soon, fren

pistols are illegal in democrat cities

As it turns out, drawing skill takes a ridiculous amount of practice.

So much so that you seclude yourself away from the world and do nothing but fucking draw all day.

Women are social creatures, and will do this much less often than men, who usually have no problem spending all their time cooped up in their room.

Couple this with the fact that there aren't many jobs/positions available, and naturally most of them are filled by men.

Very interesting thread

It shouldn't be 50/50, jobs are going to have different gender makeups due to differing career choices between genders.

It should be based on merit, with no regard to gender.

Attached: gender-gap-by-career.png (575x6756, 1.31M)

>filled by men.
Specifically, Asian men in Asian countries doing work for Westerners at incredibly low prices.

the reasons why men excel are evident in behavioral studies
far-left feminists ignore these studies and blame their monolithic "patriarchy" but reality is a tough pill for them to swallow
men have a very wide intellectual curve. the majority of people who are sociopathic, psychopathic, and mentally deficient are men. the majority of people who are hyper competent are also men.
women, on the other hand, have a much narrower curve. so, for example, male IQs can range from 75 to 125. female IQs can range from 95 to 105. these numbers are by no means exact, but serve as an example.
men are also, on average, far more aggressive than women. this translates to longer work hours. it has been shown that men work more than women, men take more risks than women, and men more aggressively pursue high-stress positions.
creating a pilot and pitching a show to a major network with limited resources is NOT and easy task. you have to write it, storyboard it, animate it, do the sound, prepare a presentation, and discuss a contract. then you need to figure out how to hire a team and then manage them. not only do you have to be a creative type to have a successful show, you also have to be an effective manager.
I'm not proposing that no woman could make a successful TV show. Steven Universe is an example of that. say what you want about the quality of the show, but Rebecca Sugar kept her people in line. Alex Hirsch and Nick Jennings are good examples of creators who couldn't keep their people in line - Hirsch couldn't manage Joe Pitt, for example, and Jennings didn't catch one of his creepy artists to self-insert himself as Blossom's love interest in the PPG reboot

That's a rather ugly formated wall of text you wrote, which is quite impressive to achieve on 4channel.

>The talent range in men is far wider than that in women.
Pretty much this. Men are the more experimental sex, if only because they can afford to be. Men are forced to prove themselves because they are more expendable when it comes to reproduction, and that is where every gender difference comes from.

pic related
that's pretty much what I said here women can be hyper competent. Grace Hopper and Margaret Thatcher are good examples of that. however, human females are less expendable than human males, so males evolved over thousands of years to compensate for that by developing a greater chance of hyper competence. sociopathy and psychopathy are more prevalent in men and are different ways of attempting competency by using violent and/or manipulative tactics.
scientists have even shown that children with Downs Syndrome actually have a superior genome which allows them to survive infancy despite their handicaps. it's just another way life tries to find a way when dealing with the crapshoot that is genetics.

Attached: what am i being asked.png (538x266, 138K)

>one of the best prime ministers

Attached: vyv vs.gif (250x250, 334K)

Who's the best then?

she had her flaws and she didn't manage the youth unemployment rate very well at all but she did save the economy and sat as a PM for longer than anyone else in British history
not bad
Labor voters viscerally hate Margaret Thatcher so there's really no point arguing with them

why is thom yorke in that picture

Attached: Thom-Yorke-Suspiria-758x426.jpg (758x426, 32K)

Maybe it's because the whole 'everyone stacks the deck in favor of women' thing is (basically) just something Anti-SJWs made up?

>equating calarts students to the entire industry

Attached: baby felix.jpg (480x360, 15K)

The smart ones get married young, have kids and stay at home or work part time.

She rode the north sea oil boom ...

What universe are you in

It's because Thatcher was actively against feminism.

Don't worry, we're taking over and still won't fuck any of you.

she rode Argentinas ass with her giant Liverpudlian dick

not that user but Asian Americans do
go to twitter and find any Asian American artist, 9 out of 10 times they more than likely have gone to an art school