I'm a little puzzled by the Wal-Mart sex discrimination suit. Seems to me there are three assumptions the left takes with respect to the retailer, and to the business world in general:
A) Wal-Mart is a ruthless mega-corp that will do virtually anything to cut costs.
B) Women, particularly women executives, make a fraction of the salaries men do.
C) Women are just as competent, experienced and eager to assume executive roles in retail as men.
Now, given those three assumptions, we're to conclude that:
D) Wal-Mart knowingly promotes costlier men to executive positions than less costly women who are just as eager to take those positions, and who are equally or better qualified.
I'm no labor economist. But to me, it just doesn't add up.
Comment spam is an ongoing problems that we're trying to address. Previously we required people to create accounts and log in. I am thankful to say that is no longer the case. We're giving Captcha another try and are playing around with a text-based Q&A variant of Captcha. So bear with us as we try to figure out how to best get a handle ont he problem. Please note that any comment on a post more than 30 days old will go into the moderation queue, where I will get to it when I can which could be once a week.
