Non-IT News Thread
-
Another way to think about China....
YOU buy 100 shares of ChinaCom (an imaginary cell phone company in China.) You buy them for $100 per share. So you have spent $10,000 dollars.
OTHER people buy shares of ChinaCom over time and are eventually spending $200 per share. In your head, you think that you can sell what you have for twice what you paid. You imagine that you have made $10,000 on top of your investment. You have a spring in your step.
OTHER people stop buying shares of ChinaCom at $200 and start buying around $130.
Did YOU earn 30%? Or did YOU lose 60%? All perspective. You still earned on your investment, but not as much as you had imagined that you had. But you never sold the stocks so you never actually earned that money. Losing market cap is not the same as a collapse.
And the money being lost isn't necessarily in China. Lots of American investors are buying Chinese stocks. So the market cap losses are spread out all over the world.
-
Buffalo, New York: Snow Piles Still Melting from Last Winter's Record Storm
Piles of snow dumped in November at the city's abandoned Central Terminal railroad station remain to this day, up to 10 feet high in some places, WGRZ reported.
-
JCPenney's send home employee for wearing outfit that is "too revealing." But most importantly what it revealed was hypocrisy since the outfit was purchased from the store itself from it's women's career section.
-
@mlnews said:
JCPenney's send home employee for wearing outfit that is "too revealing." But most importantly what it revealed was hypocrisy since the outfit was purchased from the store itself from it's women's career section.
Doesn't matter where she purchased it. Their dress code is not discriminatory. It clearly forbids shorts to all employees. This is a known activist trying to create an issue where none exists.
-
Want to make a point and stand up for the rights of some group? Fine. But don't break the rules and call it the company's problem.
-
@JaredBusch said:
Doesn't matter where she purchased it.
Not legally it doesn't, but that's not the issue. The question she's asking is about discrimination. Does JCPenney's sell short shorts in the men's career section?
-
Why would they ever suggest that shorts are a career clothing option? Outside of the tropics, and very rarely there, are shorts considered professional.
-
@scottalanmiller said:
@JaredBusch said:
Doesn't matter where she purchased it.
Not legally it doesn't, but that's not the issue. The question she's asking is about discrimination. Does JCPenney's sell short shorts in the men's career section?
No, it is not about discrimination. JC Penny's "Career" section caters to all people. At some employers shorts are perfectly acceptable.
This still has nothing to do with showing up to work in an outfit that it against the rules for ALL employees. -
@scottalanmiller said:
Why would they ever suggest that shorts are a career clothing option? Outside of the tropics, and very rarely there, are shorts considered professional.
You want to make that argument? Fine. That is not the argument she is making. And before you make the argument, you need to go to a store and fact check the men's career section.
-
@JaredBusch said:
Want to make a point and stand up for the rights of some group? Fine. But don't break the rules and call it the company's problem.
But it's not about the rules, no one said that. At least not in the article. The issue is around how women's clothing is treated, not that the rules themselves were bad. I didn't see that suggested anywhere. Are you reading a different article?
Her issue was with the combination of things - that for a girl to go buy what JCPenney's calls career clothing is recognized by JCPenney's themselves as not being acceptable. Women really are challenged by this in the workplace, this is a real issue. It's very hard for a girl to understand what is considered business appropriate and if JCPenney's markets one thing and actively doesn't agree with their own marketing it's suggestive of a problem. And that's the most that the article implies.
-
@JaredBusch said:
You want to make that argument? Fine. That is not the argument she is making. And before you make the argument, you need to go to a store and fact check the men's career section.
If she is making more of an argument that I will agree with you. But that argument was not portrayed in the news article.
-
@scottalanmiller said:
@JaredBusch said:
Doesn't matter where she purchased it.
Not legally it doesn't, but that's not the issue. The question she's asking is about discrimination. Does JCPenney's sell short shorts in the men's career section?
There's no discrimination there. There's nothing illegal about it. Do they sell Bikini's in the men's section either?
-
@thecreativeone91 said:
There's no discrimination there. There's nothing illegal about it.
The question about discrimination is whether the men's section also is suggestive of similar choices.
No one suggested that there was something illegal. I feel like a lot is being read into it. It's purely around suggesting one thing for women and possibly another thing for men. If they are selling similarly inappropriate attire and labeling it as career for men, then there is just an issue around bad marketing practices and nothing more. If they do not, is it not discrimination?
I see a legitimate issue either way, but not a big one. Should they really be selling shorts like that and calling them "career clothing"? Lots of people don't know what to wear at jobs and rely on that kind of "advice."
But the big question as Jared pointed out is what do they sell for men? If they don't sell shorts, aren't they treating the two differently on the sales floor (not in policy.)
-
We have plenty of women who wear shorts to work here. It's allowed. We have some men that do too (but, much fewer).
-
I know for a fact these are sold in the career section of our local store http://www.jcpenney.com/dockers-flat-front-solid-short/prod.jump?ppId=pp5003720431
-
@thecreativeone91 said:
We have plenty of women who wear shorts to work here. It's allowed. We have some men that do too (but, much fewer).
Allowed and "career appropriate" are completely different things. I can wear shorts and flip flops to the office, it's California. But it isn't business casual or anything of the sort. People working in places that allow that stuff don't need advice as to what to wear. It's people who need guidance, those with traditional entry level career points, who need some idea of what is appropriate and not appropriate to wear. Not what is allowed, there are policies for that hopefully, but what is considered business attire.
If you have a job (not a career) and don't care how it appears, it doesn't matter outside of policy. If you have a career and understand your clothing options and messages it doesn't matter because you are in command. But this is about the people who aren't sure what to wear when trying to be somewhat successful. Men have it easy, suits on one tier, button down shirts on another and khakis and polos below that. Can't go too wrong. It's so easy and obvious. Women have a much bigger challenge knowing what is appropriate to wear and when. It really isn't as easy and a retailer taking advantage of that is unfortunate.
Wearing shorts like that is not "business casual" anywhere that I know of. It's not that they are short, it is that they are shorts.
-
@thecreativeone91 said:
I know for a fact these are sold in the career section of our local store http://www.jcpenney.com/dockers-flat-front-solid-short/prod.jump?ppId=pp5003720431
Oh man, that's awful. They are better than the red women's shorts, sort of. But they are still bad. So that makes the overall issue nothing around discrimination but just around "bad marketing of career clothing."
-
@scottalanmiller said:
Oh man, that's awful. They are better than the red women's shorts, sort of. But they are still bad. So that makes the overall issue nothing around discrimination but just around "bad marketing of career clothing."
Which, most certainly, has nothing to do with her attention grabbing stunt.
-
@JaredBusch said:
@scottalanmiller said:
Oh man, that's awful. They are better than the red women's shorts, sort of. But they are still bad. So that makes the overall issue nothing around discrimination but just around "bad marketing of career clothing."
Which, most certainly, has nothing to do with her attention grabbing stunt.
I agree. Worth calling attention for people to understand that stores have no interest in recommending appropriate clothing (never get advice from a reseller!!!) but they seem to do so indiscriminately (is that appropriate to say, or "without discrimination.")
-
@scottalanmiller said:
indiscriminatelyOT: Sounds like another addition to Scott's Dictionary, lol.
