It Is Not Racism

[quote=Put Trader]

At some point many candidates are invited for a drink after work–I
used to do that routinely.  My intention was to take a measure of
the guy in a casual environment.  There was a great chance to lose
the job offer here–smokers are stupid and there is no room for
stupidity in my world.  Not only are they stupid, they’re also
going to be less than productive because they’re going to be wandering
off every half hour or so for a “smoke break.”  The morons
standing outside a buidling smoking are not on the fast track to
success. 

[/quote]



So smokers are stupid?  I used to smoke.  One thing I loved
to do was stand outside the building with other brokers and the
occasional trader and shoot the breeze.  It’s great way to
network, discuss current events, and talk about business.



Not all of us like to do our socializing between toilet stall dividers.

[quote=inquisitive]So smokers are stupid?  I used to smoke.  One thing I loved
to do was stand outside the building with other brokers and the
occasional trader and shoot the breeze.  It’s great way to
network, discuss current events, and talk about business.



Not all of us like to do our socializing between toilet stall dividers.

[/quote]



Are there no choices to socialize except in the bathroom or out with the morons smoking?

"When a branch manager picks up a resume and seeks the name is Squishianna Jones that manager is going to toss that resume in the round file.  It's not because he doesn't like black people, it's because he knows that investors are not going to trust somebody with a name like that.  That is not racism."

You know, I think that is racism, or perhaps racism's first cousin, the assumption that others are racist. I'm not calling you a racist, and perhaps you know something about your market that I don't, but there may very well be people who would trust someone with that name.

I really don't want to start a political thread, but would you hire a woman named Condoleezza? It would seem some pretty important people would. It really wounldn't be fair to not give Squishianna a chance assuming she's professional in her bearing, knowledgable and has drive. Sure she'll face hurdles, but we all do in some form and fashion.

Have you ever heard of a guy named Sarano Kelly? He seems to have done OK in this business

[quote=Put Trader] [quote=inquisitive]So smokers are stupid?  I used to smoke.  One thing I loved to do was stand outside the building with other brokers and the occasional trader and shoot the breeze.  It's great way to network, discuss current events, and talk about business.

Not all of us like to do our socializing between toilet stall dividers.
[/quote]

I am 17 months off cigarrettes and I still consider myself a complete tit for having been a smoker.....why? Because the urge to have a cigarette is still there, everytime a stressfult occassion comes into my life - it is usually accompanied by the dreamy aroma of a malboro red cigarette.....which is an awful sensation to fight off......and that problem will stay with me to the day I die - and lets face it, when I started I knew the facts - that over 100,000 people die each year from cigarette related lung cancer, it took over five packets of cigarettes to be smoked before I overcame the reek and coughing sensation my lungs were being subjected to ..........if that is not the definition of a moron - what is........

Also, Mr Put Trader, I am not gonna fall for your intellectual gymnastics in justifying your particular strand of racism - if you are uncomfortable with your prejudices - change them instead of splitting hairs. 

The harsh reality in the United States is the races do not get along and as a result they do not trust each other.



I have not been in a room when Sarano Kelly was talking but I have been
in plenty of rooms when people like him are working the group up. 
I have been in relatively small gatherings where one of the others in
the room was Stan O’Neal–the black CEO of Merrill Lynch.  He is a
imposing figure, confident and all that goes with success.



I also know that he was chosen for his role over others–Launny
Steffens for example–because Merrill was under attack from the
diversity pimps.  Launny would have been a far better choice but
his skin reflects light while O’Neals absorbs it and at that moment in
time that mattered more than anything else.



Mr. O’Neal did not “grow up” at Merrill, or even in the industry. 
He was hired from another firm–General Motors perhaps–sometime in the
mid 1980s.  He was also not hired into the sell side of the firm,
instead he was hired into investment banking a division where color
matters very little because just about everybody involved is dealing
with other people’s money.



But, where the rubber hits the road–retail brokerage–the overriding
factors are emotional.  Mr. and Mrs. Jones have $750,000 in a
401(k) and they are retiring.



They are going to turn to somebody who they feel understands them and
the issues that drive them.  They are going to turn  to
another middle aged white person if they’re white and they’re going to
turn to a middle aged white person if they’re black.



Why do you suppose that is?  Why do you suppose that a black guy
who is retiring from the Department of something or other is more
inclinded to choose a forty five year old white guy to advise them?

"The harsh reality in the United States is the races do not get along and as a result they do not trust each other."

There's an element of truth to that, but there are also many examples where that’s “wrong” enough that people counted out survive and thrive when given a chance. For a manager to refuse to hire someone because he's thinks the racial climate in the country is so bad that a black rep couldn't succeed is just wrong. There are too many examples I can provide you as proof. Yes the road of a minority rep is tougher in some ways, but that's no reason for them to not be given the chance. I mean, since so many hires fail, for reasons other than race, it isn’t as if those hiring have much of a handle on who’s going to succeed.<?:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" />

I suppose that since you didn’t answer my question, you would have thrown out the resumes of someone named Condoleezza, or Oprah or maybe even Colin. If you ever find yourself giving a deposition in a lawsuit about racist hiring practices, you’ll want to keep your theory to yourself. You may well think you’re doing the potential hire a favor, but you aren’t, it’s wrong and I have little doubt it’s illegal as well.

“I have not been in a room when Sarano Kelly was talking but I have been in plenty of rooms when people like him are working the group up.”

I wasn’t thinking of him in his role of “working the group up”, but in his old role as a rep. Somebody looked past the name and the black skin and hired him. They were well rewarded for doing so. 

[quote=stanwbrown]

“The harsh reality in the United States is the races do not get along and as a result they do not trust each other.”

There's an element of truth to that, but there are also many examples where that’s “wrong” enough that people counted out survive and thrive when given a chance. For a manager to refuse to hire someone because he's thinks the racial climate in the country is so bad that a black rep couldn't succeed is just wrong. There are too many examples I can provide you as proof. Yes the road of a minority rep is tougher in some ways, but that's no reason for them to not be given the chance. I mean, since so many hires fail, for reasons other than race, it isn’t as if those hiring have much of a handle on who’s going to succeed.

[/quote]

Is it the role of a branch manager to be a social engineer, or to maximize the return per square foot of his branch?

You even admit that there is truth to the point of view that blacks have a very difficult--almost impossible--row to hoe.  The black guy who fills in for Limbaugh, Walter Williams, is a professor somewhere who believes that it is doing blacks an injustice to invite them into environments where they are destined to fail.  He does not believe, for example, that colleges and universities should accept blacks on the off chance that they might make it.  That when they fail the failure will affect their psyche to the point that they may for the rest of their lives be failures.

Black guys can be great insurance salesmen--but serving as a financial advisor is a far more tricky role.  Mr. and Mrs. Jones can buy a whole life policy from a black guy confident that if it is the wrong thing for them they can adjust that mistake later.  They do not have such confidence in accepting advice regarding investments.

Yesterday I alluded to bad doctors.  It's said that they bury their mistakes.  Well, as we all know that is not always true--there are plenty of live victims of botched medical procedures.  Often the victim's life, while affected, is not severely affected.

That is not the case when it comes down  to an incompetent financial advisor whose incompetence resulted in a loss of assets so significant that one would simply wish they were dead.

It's possible to lead a semi normal life if a doctor amputated the wrong leg--it's not possible to lead a semi-normal life if you approached a financial advisor with a nest egg that disappeared because he or she was incompetent.

I assure you that nobody would feel comfortable to be lying in a hospital, about to undergo elective surgery, and have an unexpected black doctor come in and say, "Your regular doctor is away on a family emergency so I'll be doing  your procedure......."

Imagine that you were behind a one way mirror about to choose a financial advisor from a group of three individuals--sort of like in a lineup.

You're told that each of the three is a college graduate and each of them has been through the brokerage firm's training program--essentially they're "equal."

The curtain opens to reveal four 26 year olds, all dressed in very appropriate business attire, all well groomed.  They are not going to speak--you'll have to make your choice based on what you see.

Are you going to choose the white guy, the white girl, the black guy or the black girl?

You know as well as I do that a huge--as in HUGE--majority of people will choose the white guy, followed by the white girl, followed by the black girl, followed by the black guy.  Perhaps nobody will choose the black guy.

[quote=stanwbrown]

I suppose that since you didn’t answer my question, you would have thrown out the resumes of someone named Condoleezza, or Oprah or maybe even Colin. If you ever find yourself giving a deposition in a lawsuit about racist hiring practices, you’ll want to keep your theory to yourself. You may well think you’re doing the potential hire a favor, but you aren’t, it’s wrong and I have little doubt it’s illegal as well.

“I have not been in a room when Sarano Kelly was talking but I have been in plenty of rooms when people like him are working the group up.”

I wasn’t thinking of him in his role of “working the group up”, but in his old role as a rep. Somebody looked past the name and the black skin and hired him. They were well rewarded for doing so. 

[quote=Put Trader] [quote=stanwbrown] <?:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" />

"The harsh reality in the <?:namespace prefix = st1 ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags" />United States is the races do not get along and as a result they do not trust each other."

There's an element of truth to that, but there are also many examples where that’s “wrong” enough that people counted out survive and thrive when given a chance. For a manager to refuse to hire someone because he's thinks the racial climate in the country is so bad that a black rep couldn't succeed is just wrong. There are too many examples I can provide you as proof. Yes the road of a minority rep is tougher in some ways, but that's no reason for them to not be given the chance. I mean, since so many hires fail, for reasons other than race, it isn’t as if those hiring have much of a handle on who’s going to succeed.

[/quote]

Is it the role of a branch manager to be a social engineer, or to maximize the return per square foot of his branch?

You even admit that there is truth to the point of view that blacks have a very difficult--almost impossible--row to hoe. 

[/quote]

I don’t see how there’s a contradiction in admitting that there’s a tough road ahead for a minority hire AND saying that it IS possible and managers are wrong to dismiss that possibility entirely. Sorry, but your crystal ball about who will, and who will not succeed just isn’t that well calibrated.

[quote=Put Trader]

The curtain opens to reveal four 26 year olds, all dressed in very appropriate business attire, all well groomed.  They are not going to speak--you'll have to make your choice based on what you see.

Are you going to choose the white guy, the white girl, the black guy or the black girl?

[/quote]

Interesting question, but it’s so far removed from reality that it surely can’t be the basis for a hiring decision. Reps get better than a line up to make their pitch to potential clients.

 [quote=stanwbrown]

I suppose that since you didn’t answer my question, you would have thrown out the resumes of someone named Condoleezza, or Oprah or maybe even Colin. If you ever find yourself giving a deposition in a lawsuit about racist hiring practices, you’ll want to keep your theory to yourself. You may well think you’re doing the potential hire a favor, but you aren’t, it’s wrong and I have little doubt it’s illegal as well.

“I have not been in a room when Sarano Kelly was talking but I have been in plenty of rooms when people like him are working the group up.”

I wasn’t thinking of him in his role of “working the group up”, but in his old role as a rep. Somebody looked past the name and the black skin and hired him. They were well rewarded for doing so. 

[/quote]

[quote=Put Trader]
Condoleeza Rice and Colin Powell both rose to where they rose because of Affirmative Action--especially General Powell who is actually nothing more than a incredibly lucky at being in the right place at the right time.

[/quote] Both received help via AA, no doubt. But that fact is they DID succeed after they got the chance. Consider your decision to hire someone who fits every part of your hiring criteria except name and skin color to be an AA hire (in fact, by your corporate policy it probably is). BTW, just as an aside, I worked for Colin Powell and I can assure you he’s 100% the real deal. I would have followed him anywhere.

[quote=Put Trader]

Sarano Kelly has all the potential of being  a flash in the pan. 

[/quote]

Now you’re just grasping at straws. The guy with the funny name and black skin was a major producer and he’s someone you wouldn’t have hired because you wanted to “help” him avoid disappointment.

[quote=Put Trader]

Get back with me in ten years about him.  Joseph Jett is another Kidder veteran who did a lot of gross and is no longer in production.

[/quote]

Oh come on. Jett was a criminal. What could that possibly have to do with Kelly? Is he assumed a criminal because of his skin color? Is he more likely to be a criminal? Why even bring up Jett?

[quote=Put Trader]
With each of these individuals--Condi, Colin, Oprah and Sarano--none of them is competing for the trust of an individual. 

[/quote]

I couldn’t disagree with you more. That’s exactly what they did you get hired to their highest positions. You don’t think Oprah had to compete for the trust of the person who gave her her big chance? You don’t think she’s earned the trust of the individuals who have become her supporters? You’re kidding…

[quote=Put Trader]

But when asked, "Would you allow a black person to manage your money?" you're going to solicit the same inner feelings that would come out if you asked, "Would you like your child to marry somebody from another race?"

[/quote]

I’m not going to tell you you’re 100% wrong, but you’ve surely been proved often enough that a blanket “no” to potential hires with funny names and black skin s an obvious mistake.

[quote=Put Trader]

The role of finanical advisor is exceptionally personal--when done right the client opens up completely to the advisor.  People are going to choose somebody that they feel remarkably comfortable with.

You know it, I know it, all God's children know it.
[/quote]

Yep, and we both know you’ve been proved wrong often enough with your blanket “no” that you should know better by now.

[quote]But when asked, "Would you allow a black person to manage your money?" you're going to solicit the same inner feelings that would come out if you asked, "Would you like your child to marry somebody from another race?"[/quote]

I'm dating someone outside my race right now.  My family, friends, etc don't seem to think anything of it.  In fact for the last 2-3 years i've been pretty exclusive to girls outside of my race. 

[quote=Stan]I
don’t see how there’s a contradiction in admitting that there’s a tough
road ahead for a minority hire AND saying that it IS possible and
managers are wrong to dismiss that possibility entirely. Sorry, but
your crystal ball about who will, and who will not succeed just isn’t
that well calibrated.[/quote]



I have never said that it is impossible to succeed as a black broker,
what I have said is that it happens so rarely that a manager is a fool
to waste a desk on anybody other than a middle aged white male.



The brokerage business is not a social laboratory, it is the epitome of
the “private” sector.  My theme is that this is one of the few
businesses where customers are driven by a vast array of emotions that
culminate in a relationship that, when done right, is as deeply
personal as a marriage.



Against that backdrop I do think it’s unfair to managers to have their
superiors telling them to hire a minority and I think it’s unfair to
the minority to be hired.



The industry can provide opportunities for minorities in operations,
investment banking, public relations and a host of other areas. 
But it’s just plain bullheaded to think that minorities are going to be
able to reach the goals set for whites in the selling side of the
business.



How do you force investors to do business with somebody who they may
consider to be a good enough guy around town–but, for whatever reason,
they don’t want to tell him how much money they have in investments
and/or open up in any number of other ways?



Leave the social engineering where it belongs–which is…you know
social engineering doesn’t really belong anywhere come to think of it.

Your arrogance Mr Put Trader, aswell as your ignorance is nothing short of breathtakingly outstanding.

Here's a question for you. Two guys are behind a curtain, the hiring manager is told that they are essentially the same, and has to choose between the two of them....

The curtain raises and the first guy is black and when asked why he should be taken on as a rep in financial services says, "I am hungry, determined and ambitious"

The second guy is white, calles himself Put Trader and when asked why he is in the financial services industry states " so that I can talk sh*t all day long and spend my weekdays posting all sorts of racist crap on financial forums.....

I'd give the black guy the job each and every time.

[quote=dancethedrink]

Your arrogance Mr Put Trader, aswell as your ignorance is nothing short of breathtakingly outstanding.

Here's a question for you. Two guys are behind a curtain, the hiring manager is told that they are essentially the same, and has to choose between the two of them....

The curtain raises and the first guy is black and when asked why he should be taken on as a rep in financial services says, "I am hungry, determined and ambitious"

The second guy is white, calles himself Put Trader and when asked why he is in the financial services industry states " so that I can talk sh*t all day long and spend my weekdays posting all sorts of racist crap on financial forums.....

I'd give the black guy the job each and every time.

[/quote]

And the award for the worst analogy ever, goes to.......

"I have never said that it is impossible to succeed as a black broker, what I have said is that it happens so rarely that a manager is a fool to waste a desk on anybody other than a middle aged white male."

Wow. I have to tell you, and I've been trying not to get personal, but that is damned near the dumbest thing I've heard lately...

I'm curious. If you DO hire only "middle aged white males", assuming you haven't been fired or sued, or both, what percentage of those guys work out? 25%?

"  My theme is that this is one of the few businesses where customers are driven by a vast array of emotions that culminate in a relationship that, when done right, is as deeply personal as a marriage."

There are many relationships like that. Your Priest/Rabbi/Minister/Guru, your doctor, your lawyer, just to name three. You figure it was a waste for minorities in those fields to be hired?

I'm beginning to wonder where you're living that you think the races distrust each other so much that one group never trusts the other...

"Against that backdrop I do think it's unfair to managers to have their superiors telling them to hire a minority and I think it's unfair to the minority to be hired."

Amazing. The washout rate for whites is what, 85%. Even if the washout rate for minorities was 99.9999999% is that gap so large, and your crystal ball to well calibrated that you can spot the 14.999999% difference?  Sorry, but I'm not only not convinced, I've seen living evidence that you're wrong.

" But it's just plain bullheaded to think that minorities are going to be able to reach the goals set for whites in the selling side of the business."

You say that even though you've seen it happen? Really?

"How do you force investors to do business with somebody...."

You don't have to "force" anybody to do anything. It's not like the distrust level is 100% or that there aren't potential clients among minority groups that minority reps could work with even IF 99.9999% of whites are the racists you claim.

[quote=stanwbrown]

You don’t have to “force” anybody
to do anything. It’s not like the distrust level is 100% or that there
aren’t potential clients among minority groups that minority reps could
work with even IF 99.9999% of whites are the racists you claim.

[quote=stanwbrown]

“I have never said that it
is impossible to succeed as a black broker, what I have said is that it
happens so rarely that a manager is a fool to waste a desk on anybody
other than a middle aged white male.”

Wow. I have to tell you, and I've been trying not to get personal, but that is damned near the dumbest thing I've heard lately...

"I'll say it slowly so you can get it.

”It.....is.....not.........racist..........to......want.... .....to.......do.....business......with ....somebody......w ho......is.......like.......you. "<?:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" />

There’s no need to say it slowly OR again as I’ve never said otherwise.

Up to this point we've been focusing on managers who simply refuse to hire minorities and your defense for them, not the decisions of potential clients. Clients are free to use whatever basis they like to chose whomever they’d like in whatever hiring they do. Period. They may well have racist motives, but again, we’ve been discussing managers.

The fact is the relationship between an advisor and a client is a close one, but not uniquely so. I’ve already pointed out to you other areas where the relationship is just as close and the races have been known to “cross lines”. It’s also been pointed out to you that minorities HAVE succeeded in this industry, so you’re theory that the odds are just so remote that the manager’s doing the potential hire a break by not hiring them is just silly. Even if 100% of whites refused to work with minorities, there’s money in the minority community.

You refused to answer any questions I posed to you about wash-out rates and how well your hiring crystal ball is, so I’ll assume that’s because it’s a weak point in your argument.

”Why do you suppose the successful black middle manager at the Department of Housing and Urban Development is more likely to choose a white guy as his financial advisor?”

I don’t suppose that. It could well be HE doesn’t take race into account when hiring. It could be a prior relationship. It could be he hasn’t encountered a minority rep.

 I know I’ve prospected black business owners a number of times only to be told they wanted to bring their business to another minority. The same applies to some Jewish prospects I’ve approached. “Supporting your own” has a real attraction to some minorities, which would undermine your “even blacks prefer to hire white advisors” theory.

[quote=Stan]You
refused to answer any questions I posed to you about wash-out rates and
how well your hiring crystal ball is, so I’ll assume that’s because
it’s a weak point in your argument.[/quote]



I am not refusing to answer it–it’s just another nonsensical point of view you have.



When selecting somebody to fill a desk the manager owes it to himself to choose the most likely winner.



If only 15% of white guys make it, but only 5% of blacks make it only a
fool would counsel, “Take the black guy, take the black guy” when the
challenge is to hire a "keeper."



In the sh*thousefirm environment you appear to come from the manager
hires anybody who applies–but in the rarfied air of the real firms
each manager gets a shot or two a year at a new hire.



They, the managers, are not social engineers they are businessmen and
they’re idiots to waste their pick on somebody who comes to bat with
the count 0 and 2.

[quote=Put Trader] [quote=stanwbrown] <?:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" />

"I have never said that it is impossible to succeed as a black broker, what I have said is that it happens so rarely that a manager is a fool to waste a desk on anybody other than a middle aged white male."

Wow. I have to tell you, and I've been trying not to get personal, but that is damned near the dumbest thing I've heard lately...

[/quote]

Really?  In the march of time--years and years and years--is it not true that white males have succeeded in far greater percentages than any other identifiable group?
[/quote]

Of course that’s true. What you seem unable to grasp is just because that’s true doesn’t justify YOU refusing to hire minorities. In fact, you’re helping to make sure that never changes. Do you have any doubt that what you say about potential reps was said about minorities applying to law school or medical school? Do you figure no whites hire minority doctors or lawyers today?

You keep talking about the odds of a minority succeeding, and indeed it’s less likely, but the fact is such a small percentage of white male hires work out that it’s laughable to hear someone say they can be so amazingly accurate in their hiring that they can find the difference in the 85% of whites that work don’t out and the say, worst case 99.9999% of minorities that don’t.

[quote=Put Trader]
How many people do you think might not do business with a broker because they were a white man?
[/quote]

I’ve met some and you’ve heard experiences here about others that wouldn’t. The fact is that number isn’t so large that it would keep white males from succeeding, but it would go a long way towards making life good for the small percentage of women and minorities in the biz.

[quote=Put Trader]

How about how many people are there who might not do business with a woman?  A black?  An Hispanic?

[/quote]

That percentage is no doubt higher, HOWEVER it isn’t so high that minorities can’t succeed and/or should be hired. There’s plenty of assets available with people who WILL work with minorities and women. That’s already been proved.

[quote=Put Trader]
Is the role of a branch manager to maximize the gross revenue of his office or to provide employment to those who are finding it difficult to land a job?
[/quote]

Obviously its’s the former (although your latter assertion doesn’t hold much water. Just because a manager won’t hire them doesn’t mean there aren’t plenty or opportunity for them elsewhere) and TO THAT END the manager shouldn’t be so blind as to say there are no minorities that can succeed OR believe their own powers of assumption about potential hires is so sharply tuned that they can determine that 14.9999% gap I’ve mentioned.

It seems to me that in a business where 85% of the “favored” group fails to work out it’s just silly to claim that the chances are “too remote” to hire women and minorities. “Remote”? 15% sound pretty remote and we still hire everyday.

Then there’s always the fact that it’s illegal….

I
know I’ve prospected black business owners a number of times only to be
told they wanted to bring their business to another minority. The same
applies to some Jewish prospects I’ve approached. “Supporting your own”
has a real attraction to some minorities, which would undermine your
“even blacks prefer to hire white advisors” theory.



I’d agree that that is true among the Jews–fortunately for them there’s no shortage of Jewish brokers from which to choose.



It is far less true among blacks–it’s got to do with Affirmative
Action.  Blacks are just as likely as the rest of us to conclude
that the reason the broker has a black face is because of the black
face rather than skills and intelligence.



Often a black middle manager knows that he, himself, is really nothing
more than  an affirmative action hire pretending that he’s equal
to everybody else–and he’s damn reluctant to trust his future, his
money, to a fellow dumbass pretending to be something he’s not.



Again–for the umpteenth time–there is no reason to declare, "I’m not going to do business with him because he’s a white guy."



You never get a second chance to make a first impression.  When it
comes time to be chosen for the pickup basketball game it’s good to be
a big tall black guy–but when it comes time to being chosen as a
financial advisor it’s best to be a good looking white guy between 35
and 55 years old.

<?:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" /> 

[quote=Put Trader][quote=Stan]You refused to answer any questions I posed to you about wash-out rates and how well your hiring crystal ball is, so I’ll assume that’s because it’s a weak point in your argument.[/quote]

I am not refusing to answer it--it's just another nonsensical point of view you have.

When selecting somebody to fill a desk the manager owes it to himself to choose the most likely winner.

If only 15% of white guys make it, but only 5% of blacks make it only a fool would counsel, "Take the black guy, take the black guy" when the challenge is to hire a "keeper."

[/quote]

You do realize the difference is one in three, right?  Since the average manager's "aim" at "keepers" is that poor (15%), it's pretty funny that you assume it's sharp enough to clear that 33% hurdle.

 [quote=Put Trader]
In the sh*thousefirm environment you appear to come from the manager hires anybody who applies--but in the rarfied air of the real firms each manager gets a shot or two a year at a new hire.

[/quote]

ROFLMAO. Everyone here knows THAT’S a steamy load.

[quote=Put Trader]
They, the managers, are not social engineers …

[/quote]

You keep repeating that line as if it’s something profound. It’s just as silly as your assertion that there’s limited hiring in the industry. For crying out loud the turn over rate is astounding. There are people being hired across the firm everyday in groups of ten. Just what are you talking about? My office is a tiny satellite arrangement, with only 12 people and we’ve hired two ALREADY this year.

The “sh*thousefirm” where I started, the one with the “token” CEO, the campus in Princeton and the 15,000 reps had over 70 in my training class, and you expect me to believe there wasn’t room for a woman or minority?

Thankfully those boiler room runners (say, aren’t REAL boiler rooms almost always exclusively white males?) so fit to hire some. In fact, I know another “sh*thousefrim” that’s proved you wrong in your hiring doctrine by having a woman in their top five producers in their largest region.

I can see it’s pointless to go any further with you, as you’ve dipped into self-parodyland….

[quote=stanwbrown]<p =“Msonormal” style=“margin: 0in 0in 0pt;”><o:p></o:p>

Then there’s always the fact that it’s illegal….

[quote=Put Trader] [quote=stanwbrown]

Then there’s always the fact that it’s illegal….

[/quote]

Should it be?  Is it the role of government to demand that a private industry not be allowed to hire whomever that private industry chooses to hire?

[/quote]

Yeah, if what they "chose" is to refuse to hire people because of their race or gender.

The excuse that these sterling judges of potential hires can tell that women and minorities won't "work out" even though their best efforts only give them a 15% success rate is just laughable.

The good news is even if it wasn't illegal, most people would simply refuse to folow your hiring doctrine.

The
“sh*thousefirm” where I started, the one with the “token” CEO, the
campus in Princeton and the 15,000 reps had over 70 in my training
class, and you expect me to believe there wasn’t room for a woman or
minority?



Been there many times–many times.  Depending on when you were there I may have been at the podium.



There were 70 or so in your training class–that would be from 450 or so branches.



As I said, in real brokerage firms the managers get a few chances a
year to make a hire–some branches are so stable that there is no
turnover for years while others are known for turmoil.



It averages out to between two and three hires a year per branch and
the managers are going to do their damndest to hire somebody who will
be there in twenty years instead of washing out in twenty months.

The good news is even if it wasn’t illegal, most people would simply refuse to folow your hiring doctrine.



Right, which is why there are so many blacks and women in the business–everybody but me hires them.

Put, if I’m reading you correctly it seems you’re working off the premise that minorities and women have a lesser chance of success in our business than white males.  Is that correct?  If so, I’m not sure that’s the case.  As I think back over the years, while there certainly were fewer minorities and women hired, it seems like a much higher percentage of those are still in the business.  If I’m correct in reading your premise, then before building off of it you better be sure it’s an accurate one.

[quote=Duke#1]Put, if I’m reading you correctly it seems you’re working
off the premise that minorities and women have a lesser chance of
success in our business than white males.  Is that correct? 
If so, I’m not sure that’s the case.  As I think back over the
years, while there certainly were fewer minorities and women hired, it
seems like a much higher percentage of those are still in the
business.  If I’m correct in reading your premise, then before
building off of it you better be sure it’s an accurate one.[/quote]



Yep, it’s my hypothesis that women and minorities have the odds so
stacked against them that it’s foolish to hire them instead of a white
male.



That is not to say that there are not successful exceptions–however
when lists are compiled the names at the top of the lists are
invariably white males.



I base my point of view on several things, including investor attitudes
that strongly favor white males as well as genetic differences in the
skill sets necessary to make it in the business which also strongly
favor white males.



I understand that the point of view is certainly not politically correct–but that does not make it wrong.

[quote=Put Trader]The “sh*thousefirm” where I started, the one with the “token” CEO, the campus in Princeton and the 15,000 reps had over 70 in my training class, and you expect me to believe there wasn’t room for a woman or minority?

Been there many times--many times.  Depending on when you were there I may have been at the podium.
[/quote]

ROFLMAO, were you wearing a hood at the time?

[quote=Put Trader]
There were 70 or so in your training class--that would be from 450 or so branches.

[/quote]

And that would be ONE training class of closeto a dozen during the year.

[quote=Put Trader]
As I said, in real brokerage firms the managers get a few chances a year to make a hire--some branches are so stable that there is no turnover for years while others are known for turmoil.

[/quote]

As I said before ROFLMAO...as I pointed out, my experience has been with "real brokerage firms" and managers are hiring more than 2-3 per year, even in small offices....

"Yep, it's my hypothesis that women and minorities have the odds so stacked against them that it's foolish to hire them instead of a white male."

Amazing, simply amazing..

[quote=Put Trader]The good news is even if it wasn't illegal, most people would simply refuse to folow your hiring doctrine.

Right, which is why there are so many blacks and women in the business--everybody but me hires them.
[/quote]

You've confused people like you who, in  a blanket approach refuse to hire them, with well intended people who have a hard time finding qualified applicants.

And that would be ONE training class of closeto a dozen during the year.



Yep, ten to be exact.



So 700 people go through Princeton’s rookie training each year–less than 2 per branch on average.

You’ve confused people like you who, in  a blanket approach refuse to
hire them, with well intended people who have a hard time finding
qualified applicants.



What in the world does “Well Intended”  have to do with anything we’re talking about.



A brokerage office is a business–and the man or woman in charge of
that office had best do whatever they can to ensure that their little
fiefdom is a roaring success.

[quote=dancethedrink]

[quote=Put Trader] [quote=inquisitive]So
smokers are stupid?  I used to smoke.  One thing I loved to
do was stand outside the building with other brokers and the occasional
trader and shoot the breeze.  It’s great way to network, discuss
current events, and talk about business.

Not all of us like to do our socializing between toilet stall dividers.
[/quote]

I am 17 months off cigarrettes and I still consider myself a complete tit for having been a smoker.....why? Because the urge to have a cigarette is still there, everytime a stressfult occassion comes into my life - it is usually accompanied by the dreamy aroma of a malboro red cigarette.....which is an awful sensation to fight off......and that problem will stay with me to the day I die - and lets face it, when I started I knew the facts - that over 100,000 people die each year from cigarette related lung cancer, it took over five packets of cigarettes to be smoked before I overcame the reek and coughing sensation my lungs were being subjected to ..........if that is not the definition of a moron - what is........

[quote=Put Trader]The harsh reality in the United States is the races
do not get along and as a result they do not trust each other.

[/quote]



The harsh truth is that real differences exist between the races, stark and consistent.



Differences exist between genders, too.



It’s true.  You cannot deny that.  Even if you want to, you can’t.



And by the way, some people just won’t get along for arbitrary
reasons.  Germans didn’t get along with Poles–and they were all
white.  Same for Irish Catholics and Protestants.  Hell, even
same race street gangs don’t get along.



If it isn’t race, it’s religion or nationality or a whole host of other reasons.



Some people just have to be difficult.

[quote=Put Trader]

You never get a second chance to make a first impression.  When it
comes time to be chosen for the pickup basketball game it’s good to be
a big tall black guy–but when it comes time to being chosen as a
financial advisor it’s best to be a good looking white guy between 35
and 55 years old.


[/quote]



Yes.  You’ve mentioned something else:  being good looking.



The fact is that good looking people get opportunities that others
don’t get.  That is sad.  Personally, if I were hiring an
assistant or something, the last thing I’d want is an attractive woman
distracting me all day.



I guess we all discriminate whether we want to or not.  (How many
women discriminate based on looks regarding who they will date?)



Who’s going to make a better impression on a client, an attractive
clean-cut guy in a nice suit or a financial genius in jeans and a
t-shirt?



Marketing is a big part of it.  And for whatever reason, blacks
may be at a disadvantage.  As are unattractive people who don’t
dress for success.



I know at the places I’ve worked, they beg and plead for blacks to come in and interview.  Very few do.



I’ll bet you there are more black drug dealers in America than black investment advisors.  That is quite sad.

[quote=stanwbrown]

“Yep, it’s my hypothesis that women and
minorities have the odds so stacked against them that it’s foolish to
hire them instead of a white male.”

Amazing, simply amazing..

[quote=Put Trader]I know I’ve prospected black business owners a number of times only to be told they wanted to bring their business to another minority. The same applies to some Jewish prospects I’ve approached. “Supporting your own” has a real attraction to some minorities, which would undermine your “even blacks prefer to hire white advisors” theory.

I'd agree that that is true among the Jews--fortunately for them there's no shortage of Jewish brokers from which to choose.

It is far less true among blacks--it's got to do with Affirmative Action.  Blacks are just as likely as the rest of us to conclude that the reason the broker has a black face is because of the black face rather than skills and intelligence.

Often a black middle manager knows that he, himself, is really nothing more than  an affirmative action hire pretending that he's equal to everybody else--and he's damn reluctant to trust his future, his money, to a fellow dumbass pretending to be something he's not.

Again--for the umpteenth time--there is no reason to declare, "I'm not going to do business with him because he's a white guy."

You never get a second chance to make a first impression.  When it comes time to be chosen for the pickup basketball game it's good to be a big tall black guy--but when it comes time to being chosen as a financial advisor it's best to be a good looking white guy between 35 and 55 years old.
[/quote]

Wow....and where is our friend metellnoname who thinks PutTrader is such a font of truth?  Where are you metellnoname?

[quote=Put Trader]

You even admit that there is truth to the point of view that blacks have a very difficult--almost impossible--row to hoe.  The black guy who fills in for Limbaugh, Walter Williams, is a professor somewhere who believes that it is doing blacks an injustice to invite them into environments where they are destined to fail.  He does not believe, for example, that colleges and universities should accept blacks on the off chance that they might make it.  That when they fail the failure will affect their psyche to the point that they may for the rest of their lives be failures.

Black guys can be great insurance salesmen--but serving as a financial advisor is a far more tricky role.  Mr. and Mrs. Jones can buy a whole life policy from a black guy confident that if it is the wrong thing for them they can adjust that mistake later.  They do not have such confidence in accepting advice regarding investments.

Yesterday I alluded to bad doctors.  It's said that they bury their mistakes.  Well, as we all know that is not always true--there are plenty of live victims of botched medical procedures.  Often the victim's life, while affected, is not severely affected.

That is not the case when it comes down  to an incompetent financial advisor whose incompetence resulted in a loss of assets so significant that one would simply wish they were dead.

It's possible to lead a semi normal life if a doctor amputated the wrong leg--it's not possible to lead a semi-normal life if you approached a financial advisor with a nest egg that disappeared because he or she was incompetent.

I assure you that nobody would feel comfortable to be lying in a hospital, about to undergo elective surgery, and have an unexpected black doctor come in and say, "Your regular doctor is away on a family emergency so I'll be doing  your procedure......."

Imagine that you were behind a one way mirror about to choose a financial advisor from a group of three individuals--sort of like in a lineup.

You're told that each of the three is a college graduate and each of them has been through the brokerage firm's training program--essentially they're "equal."

The curtain opens to reveal four 26 year olds, all dressed in very appropriate business attire, all well groomed.  They are not going to speak--you'll have to make your choice based on what you see.

Are you going to choose the white guy, the white girl, the black guy or the black girl?

You know as well as I do that a huge--as in HUGE--majority of people will choose the white guy, followed by the white girl, followed by the black girl, followed by the black guy.  Perhaps nobody will choose the black guy.

[quote=stanwbrown]

I suppose that since you didn’t answer my question, you would have thrown out the resumes of someone named Condoleezza, or Oprah or maybe even Colin. If you ever find yourself giving a deposition in a lawsuit about racist hiring practices, you’ll want to keep your theory to yourself. You may well think you’re doing the potential hire a favor, but you aren’t, it’s wrong and I have little doubt it’s illegal as well.

“I have not been in a room when Sarano Kelly was talking but I have been in plenty of rooms when people like him are working the group up.”

I wasn’t thinking of him in his role of “working the group up”, but in his old role as a rep. Somebody looked past the name and the black skin and hired him. They were well rewarded for doing so. 

[/quote]

Condoleeza Rice and Colin Powell both rose to where they rose because of Affirmative Action--especially General Powell who is actually nothing more than a incredibly lucky at being in the right place at the right time.

Oprah is what she is because she works her ass off and has been willing to take chances.  She also has a personality that is appealing to the women who watch her show--if anything she is the proof that racism does NOT exist in this country.

Sarano Kelly has all the potential of being  a flash in the pan.  Get back with me in ten years about him.  Joseph Jett is another Kidder veteran who did a lot of gross and is no longer in production.

With each of these individuals--Condi, Colin, Oprah and Sarano--none of them is competing for the trust of an individual.  All are operating on a different level--it's a lot like asking people, "Do you believe that everybody should be allowed to live anywhere they can afford?"

About 99% of us would say yes.

But when asked, "Would you allow a black person to manage your money?" you're going to solicit the same inner feelings that would come out if you asked, "Would you like your child to marry somebody from another race?"

If you're a soul who says, "It would not bother me if my son or daughter married outside of our race" you should go look in the mirror and  behold somebody who lies to themselves.

The role of finanical advisor is exceptionally personal--when done right the client opens up completely to the advisor.  People are going to choose somebody that they feel remarkably comfortable with.

You know it, I know it, all God's children know it.
[/quote]

Wow...where do I start? 

Do you REALLY believe that most people would prefer to lose a leg over losing money?  Holy hell...I think money is important, but I'd rather keep my leg.

I might choose a 26 year old as my protege, registered assistant, or a junior broker, but not as my financial advisor, no matter what color they were.  Yes first impressions matter a great deal, but nobody would choose a financial advisor SOLEY for their appearance, except perhaps someone who is extremely bigoted.  I would be much more interested in hearing what they had to say first.

So Condi and Colin made it where they were because of Affirmative Action, but Oprah Winfrey, the popular icon, made it because of her hard work and natural appeal to housewives?  Wow....do you realize who totally demeaning that is to all parties involved?  Do you really mean to tell me that Colin Powell became the highest ranking military officer in this country because of a racial preference program?  Did we then make him Secretary of State not because of his accopmlishments and his intellect but rather as a result of some racial quota at the highest levels of our government?  Wow....are you KIDDING ME????  It scares the dickens out of me that you could actually believe your own BS!

No it honestly wouldn't matter to me if my daughter married a black man or a man of any other race or creed if he was a good man.....that simple.  Believe it or not.  I don't care if you do.  Your opinions would hardly matter to me if they weren't so damn disturbing.

Metellnoname...where are you?  Your 'buddy' Put Trader has shown his true stripes.  Now is a time where perhaps your comments, even with your bitterness, are sorely needed.

[quote=Put Trader][quote=Stan]I don’t see how there’s a contradiction in admitting that there’s a tough road ahead for a minority hire AND saying that it IS possible and managers are wrong to dismiss that possibility entirely. Sorry, but your crystal ball about who will, and who will not succeed just isn’t that well calibrated.[/quote]

I have never said that it is impossible to succeed as a black broker, what I have said is that it happens so rarely that a manager is a fool to waste a desk on anybody other than a middle aged white male.

The brokerage business is not a social laboratory, it is the epitome of the "private" sector.  My theme is that this is one of the few businesses where customers are driven by a vast array of emotions that culminate in a relationship that, when done right, is as deeply personal as a marriage.

Against that backdrop I do think it's unfair to managers to have their superiors telling them to hire a minority and I think it's unfair to the minority to be hired.

The industry can provide opportunities for minorities in operations, investment banking, public relations and a host of other areas.  But it's just plain bullheaded to think that minorities are going to be able to reach the goals set for whites in the selling side of the business.

How do you force investors to do business with somebody who they may consider to be a good enough guy around town--but, for whatever reason, they don't want to tell him how much money they have in investments and/or open up in any number of other ways?

Leave the social engineering where it belongs--which is........you know social engineering doesn't really belong anywhere come to think of it.
[/quote]

Oh man....well Stan....I think we got the answer to why there are so few minorities in the retail end of the business.  Too many guys like Put Trader are doing this hiring and the trading.

This stuff is more disturbing every time I read it.  Some of this sounds like the sanitized disguised hatred spouted by the newest generation of white supremacists.  Do you hang out with David Duke?

I can't believe the grief I'm taking from metellnoname and to see someone putting this stuff on the table.  **shakes head**  It's people like this who truly perpetuate institutionalized racism in our business....and yet they rationalize it in their own minds as "pragmatic business decisions".

[quote=Joe]I can’t believe the grief I’m taking from metellnoname and to see
someone putting this stuff on the table.  shakes head  It’s people
like this who truly perpetuate institutionalized racism in our
business…and yet they rationalize it in their own minds as
"pragmatic business decisions".[/quote]



Can you cite a single thing about the point of view I am espousing that
is not in the best interest of a branch manager and his branch?



From where I sit if a black broker causes a single potential customer
to fail to open an account because they do want to do business with a
black broker that is one client too many.



The fact is that when investors of any rarce wander into a brokerage
firm looking for advice they expect to encounter a white man. 
Nobody, as in nobody, is going to not want the advice of a white man,
but there are lots of people who would not trust the advice of a woman
or a black.



It’s nonsensical to think that if you hire a woman broker your branch
will open accounts with women that would not have been opened any other
way–oh sure there are a few militants who might only do business with
another woman, but those women are not opening accounts at the Smith
Barney office in Dayton, OH.



Even more ridiculous is the belief that black brokers attract more
assets than they turn away.  What do you figure, 5% of the
country’s blacks make investment decisions for themselves?  Five
percent of twelve percent is less than one percent.



Does it make sense to hire an individual who might appeal to less than
1% of the population when that desk could be occupied by a person who
does not cause the issue to even be considered?

[quote=Put Trader][quote=Joe]I can't believe the grief I'm taking from metellnoname and to see someone putting this stuff on the table.  **shakes head**  It's people like this who truly perpetuate institutionalized racism in our business....and yet they rationalize it in their own minds as "pragmatic business decisions".[/quote]

Can you cite a single thing about the point of view I am espousing that is not in the best interest of a branch manager and his branch?

From where I sit if a black broker causes a single potential customer to fail to open an account because they do want to do business with a black broker that is one client too many.

The fact is that when investors of any rarce wander into a brokerage firm looking for advice they expect to encounter a white man.  Nobody, as in nobody, is going to not want the advice of a white man, but there are lots of people who would not trust the advice of a woman or a black.

It's nonsensical to think that if you hire a woman broker your branch will open accounts with women that would not have been opened any other way--oh sure there are a few militants who might only do business with another woman, but those women are not opening accounts at the Smith Barney office in Dayton, OH.

Even more ridiculous is the belief that black brokers attract more assets than they turn away.  What do you figure, 5% of the country's blacks make investment decisions for themselves?  Five percent of twelve percent is less than one percent.

Does it make sense to hire an individual who might appeal to less than 1% of the population when that desk could be occupied by a person who does not cause the issue to even be considered?
[/quote]

There is some question in my mind as to whether or not your logic is completely sound.  Even if I were to stipulate that it is, that doesn't mean I don't have to deny I find it repulsive.

[quote=stanwbrown]

You've confused people like you who, in  a blanket approach refuse to hire them, with well intended people who have a hard time finding qualified applicants.
[/quote]

[quote=Put Trader]
What in the world does "Well Intended"  have to do with anything we're talking about.

[/quote]

That would be someone who'd be willing to hire a qualified minority, as opposed to someone like you who would never hire a minority and cloaks his virulent racism as pragmatic business sense.<?:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" />

[quote=stanwbrown]

[quote=stanwbrown]

You've confused people like you who, in  a blanket approach refuse to hire them, with well intended people who have a hard time finding qualified applicants.
[/quote]

[quote=Put Trader]
What in the world does "Well Intended"  have to do with anything we're talking about.

[/quote]

That would be someone who'd be willing to hire a qualified minority, as opposed to someone like you who would never hire a minority and cloaks his virulent racism as pragmatic business sense.

"I ask again--is it the role of a branch manager to offer jobs or to generate as much profit per registered rep as the branch can generate?"<?:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" />

I can see how someone whose vision is limited by the eyeholes they had to cut out of the pillowcase they're wearing on their head might not see it, but hiring a minority isn't a guarantee of a lower profit rate. Again, when your hiring skills are as poor as your 85% error rate, I wouldn’t bet the farm that your instincts are well honed enough to blather as you have about “wasted” desks.

"What is a qualified minority anyway? "

Sigh…. That would be a minority that possess everything you mentioned you look for in a qualified hire, except your assertion that they have white skin and grey hair. An education, social skills, intelligence, drive, determination a professional manner, etc.. Believe it or not “the negro” (as you insist on calling them) has advanced since your childhood. Why, some of them even use silverware, and know which fork to use when.

“ Is it possible to be a qualified majority?”

Huh, yeah. But isn’t it interesting that you always swing the topic around to the plight of the poor aggrieved majority and a laundry list of Klan talking points??

[quote=stanwbrown] 

"I ask again--is it the role of a branch manager to offer jobs or to generate as much profit per registered rep as the branch can generate?"

I can see how someone whose vision is limited by the eyeholes they had to cut out of the pillowcase they're wearing on their head might not see it, but hiring a minority isn't a guarantee of a lower profit rate. Again, when your hiring skills are as poor as your 85% error rate, I wouldn’t bet the farm that your instincts are well honed enough to blather as you have about “wasted” desks.

"I don't have an 85% error rate--I'm not sure where that stat comes from."

Do try to keep up, please. It's bad enough I'm wasting time conversing with a bigot, don't make it worse by having me detail the past of the thread with you. If the industry washout rate is 85%, then the success rate in spotting "winners" is 15%.

"What is true--across the board--is that the demographic group most likely to make it in this business is white men and as such a branch office manager is going against the odds of success by hiring anything else.

It would be fun to hear how you disgree with that concept--that hiring anything other than a white male is bucking the trend....spitting into the wind as it were."

Again, if you'd been reading the thread (take off the hood, it will be easier to see the screen) you'd know that it's been agreed to by all participating that the fight is tougher for a minority.

The probelm with your "logic" is that you take the "tougher", make it near impossible and from that position claim to be doing minorities a service by refusing to hire them.

"Why in the world should a businessman, charged with generating a profit, ever lower the standards?"

Again a Klan talking point surfaces. Who ever said anything about lowering standards? The only point of debate is your blanket refusal to hire minorities.

Again a Klan talking point surfaces. Who ever said anything about
lowering standards? The only point of debate is your blanket refusal to
hire minorities.





What is the argument in favor of hiriing minorities?  What do they bring to the table that a white guy does not?

"What is the argument in favor of hiriing minorities?"<?:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" />

It's interesting that you jump from hiring qualified minorities to an assertion that someone's asking for "lowered standards". Could you explain that jump in logic?

Is it your hooded assumption that minorities are simply inferior? The simplest argument in favor is simple fairness that every qualified person who can succeed (and your assertion that their chances are simply too remote has yet to be supported and has been disproved several times already) shouldn’t be deterred by you, the hirer, because of the color of their skin.

"  What do they bring to the table that a white guy does not?"

We could discuss the value of having a diverse workforce, but rather, how about you explain why a minority HAS to "bring" some thing different? Wasn't the goal, as you stated it, to hire people who could succeed? How about if they “bring” nothing more than your prototypical white guy?

Just how do either of your diversions from that profit goal in the above questions have anything to do with that? They sound just like the “aggrieved white guy” Klan talking points to me…

[quote=stanwbrown]

“What is the argument in favor of hiriing minorities?”<o:p></o:p>

It's interesting that you jump from hiring qualified minorities to an assertion that someone's asking for "lowered standards". Could you explain that jump in logic?

Is it your hooded assumption that minorities are simply inferior? The simplest argument in favor is simple fairness that every qualified person who can succeed (and your assertion that their chances are simply too remote has yet to be supported and has been disproved several times already) shouldn’t be deterred by you, the hirer, because of the color of their skin.

[/quote]

If I were the postmaster, with an almost limitless number of jobs, you might be right.  But a brokerage firm is a finite environment and as such the manager MUST hire the most qualified indiviiduals that they can find.

IF there were a shortage of resumes submitted by white males perhaps the manager should turn to women and or minorities in order to fill their branch--but that is not the case.

Since race and gender DOES matter to the clients of brokerage firms it must matter to those who hire.  As I've already explained, if a single prospect turns and walks away from my branch because that prospect was turned off by a woman or a minority that is one prospect lost too many.

For that reason, and that reason alone, a BOM owes it to himself and his firm to only hire white guys.  There is nothing wrong with having occupations that are unisex or unirace--and absent any compelling reason to hire a woman or a minority there is no reason to change a formula that works well.

[quote=Stan]

"  What do they bring to the table that a white guy does not?"

We could discuss the value of having a diverse workforce, but rather, how about you explain why a minority HAS to "bring" some thing different? Wasn't the goal, as you stated it, to hire people who could succeed? How about if they “bring” nothing more than your prototypical white guy?

Just how do either of your diversions from that profit goal in the above questions have anything to do with that? They sound just like the “aggrieved white guy” Klan talking points to me…

[quote=Put Trader] [quote=stanwbrown] <?:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" />

"What is the argument in favor of hiriing minorities?"

It's interesting that you jump from hiring qualified minorities to an assertion that someone's asking for "lowered standards". Could you explain that jump in logic?

Is it your hooded assumption that minorities are simply inferior? The simplest argument in favor is simple fairness that every qualified person who can succeed (and your assertion that their chances are simply too remote has yet to be supported and has been disproved several times already) shouldn’t be deterred by you, the hirer, because of the color of their skin.

[/quote]

If I were the postmaster, with an almost limitless number of jobs, you might be right.  But a brokerage firm is a finite environment and as such the manager MUST hire the most qualified indiviiduals that they can find.

[/quote]

No one’s said to hire less than qualified people. Your assertion that minorities are automatically “less” qualified remains unsupported, even if we accept your silly “they don’t hire many people” line.

[quote=Put Trader]

Since race and gender DOES matter to the clients of brokerage firms it must matter to those who hire. 

[/quote]

You continue to repeat this as if it’s the be all and end all of  prospecting for clients. Yes, there are bigots like you, but it’s also been pointed out to you, numerous times, that there ARE examples of minorities that succeed.

Race matters to some people who hire doctors or lawyers. Thankfully that percentage isn’t as large as you would have us believe and the bosses of those doctors and lawyers don’t share your membership with the Klan.

[quote=Put Trader]

As I've already explained, if a single prospect turns and walks away from my branch because that prospect was turned off by a woman or a minority that is one prospect lost too many.

[/quote]

Yeah, you’ve said that as if it matters, but it doesn’t. There will also be prospects who turn away from white brokers from stupid reasons, like the school they attended, their religion, etc.. What’s with your desire to market to bigots and your desire to turn away minority  or non-racist accounts?

[quote=Stan]

"  What do they bring to the table that a white guy does not?"

We could discuss the value of having a diverse workforce, but rather, how about you explain why a minority HAS to "bring" some thing different? Wasn't the goal, as you stated it, to hire people who could succeed? How about if they “bring” nothing more than your prototypical white guy?

Just how do either of your diversions from that profit goal in the above questions have anything to do with that? They sound just like the “aggrieved white guy” Klan talking points to me…

[quote=Put Trader]
I'm all ears, what is the value of a "diverse" workforce?  Will the branch gross production be increased? 

[/quote]

I’m not interested in being sidetracked by you into a favorite cul-de-sac of aggrieved Klan members.

Sufficient to say if you’re able to promote your stereotype of race relations as “fact”, let me produce one, one not grounded in a 1920s view of the world. Smarter people tend not to be racist, in fact they look down on racists. Smarter people tend to have more assets. Therefore a wise, profit driven manager wouldn’t want to become known as a racist in hiring matters and offend the more lucrative client base. By marketing to bigots, you diminish profits.

Just imagine how much of your bottom line would leave your firm tomorrow if the news broke that you refuse to hire minorities because you assume your client base shares your racism.

[[quote=Put Trader]

You know something Stan, my boy.  It is generally understood that the person involved in a discussion who calls the other person names does so because his points of view are vapid.
[/quote]

Says the guy quick to turn to insults and has even begun a thread that says, in essence, “if you disagree with me you’re a moron”. You’re just too big a caricature to be taken seriously.

[quote=Put Trader]

I am no more a racist than you are--I'm just mature, and intellectually honest, enough to come to grips with reality.

[/quote]

And what part of the self-description is evidenced by using terms like “the negro”? ROFLMAO….

[quote=Put Trader]

In another entry you are whining about my belief that hiring people who are destined to fail is a disservice to them.
[/quote]

What you misread was my criticism of your blanket, and still unsupported theory that minorities shouldn’t be hired because there are too many bigots with money.

[quote=Put Trader]
I do believe that--and find you to be incredibly mean spirited to suggest that anything other than that is right.

[/quote]

Again, you may believe your theory about “the negro”, his abilities and race relations in general. That doesn’t keep you from being a racist tool.

[quote=Put Trader]
You're the type of guy who thinks you're doing the right thing when you tell a kid at the Special Olympics that with enough practice they could become an wide receiver in the NFL.
[/quote]

So that’s analogous to hiring a minority as a rep?  Gee, I’ve seen successful minority reps, but I’ve never seen a Special Olympics kid qualify for the real Olympics, have you?

You’re too funny for works, Mr. Byrd.

[quote=Put Trader]Lying to others about their opportunities is far more damaging to them than simply steering them in the correct way to begin with.
[/quote]

LOL, the racist and his “pragmatic businessman” disguise. I just love it.

Just
imagine how much of your bottom line would leave your firm tomorrow if
the news broke that you refuse to hire minorities because you assume
your client base shares your racism.



Tell me Stan, how do you suppose an attitude like mine would become public?



Is it possible–just possible–that minorities and women are simply not hired?



Tell me again why I should hire somebody other than a white male who
does not bring something else to the table.  Perhaps they’re “well
connnected”–if so I’ll hire the connections.  Perhaps they’re
famous for some other reason, like a local football hero–if so I’ll
hire the hero.



But if I’ve got Andrew, Ann and Andre to choose from and none of them
have experience, and none of them bring fame or fortune I’ll cast my
lot with Andrew every time.



To not do so is a disservice to Andrew who has just as much a right to the opportunity I have to extend as Ann or Andre has.



Or am I wrong–Andrew should not be given the same shot at success?

[quote=Put Trader]Just imagine how much of your bottom line would leave your firm tomorrow if the news broke that you refuse to hire minorities because you assume your client base shares your racism.

Tell me Stan, how do you suppose an attitude like mine would become public?

[/quote]

Why would that matter, "how"? Why not simply answer the question? Would it help or hurt your business if your racist hiring habits got out?

If your answer is the latter, just how could that be if yours is the common attitude?

And since the latter is the obvious honest answer, why would a profit driven manager, even a bigot, take that chance on destroying his firm?

[quote=stanwbrown]

[quote=Put Trader]Just
imagine how much of your bottom line would leave your firm tomorrow if
the news broke that you refuse to hire minorities because you assume
your client base shares your racism.

Tell me Stan, how do you suppose an attitude like mine would become public?

[/quote]

Why would that matter, "how"? Why not simply answer the question? Would it help or hurt your business if your racist hiring habits got out?

If your answer is the latter, just how could that be if yours is the common attitude?

And since the latter is the obvious honest answer, why would a profit driven manager, even a bigot, take that chance on destroying his firm?

[quote=Put Trader] [quote=stanwbrown]

[quote=Put Trader]Just imagine how much of your bottom line would leave your firm tomorrow if the news broke that you refuse to hire minorities because you assume your client base shares your racism.

Tell me Stan, how do you suppose an attitude like mine would become public?

[/quote]

Why would that matter, "how"? Why not simply answer the question? Would it help or hurt your business if your racist hiring habits got out?

If your answer is the latter, just how could that be if yours is the common attitude?

And since the latter is the obvious honest answer, why would a profit driven manager, even a bigot, take that chance on destroying his firm?

[/quote]

I suspect it would have very little effect on a branch profitability if it were announced that the branch manager would not hire a woman or a Negro.

[/quote]

ROFALMO, I doubt it. Not only do I believe it would effect branch and firm profitability if your racist hiring practices were common knowledge, I think it would effect them if it became know the firm employed a branch manager who used the term "negros".

[quote=Put Trader]
I know that all I'd have to do if I were in production in such a branch is tell my clients--the few who cared--"Yep the guy's a piece of work, but you're dealing with me not him" and the entire issue would go away.
[/quote]

Again, I doubt it. Smarter people (having more assets to invest and having little respect for bigots) would not only not want to be associated with your firm, they'd ask you brokers why they work at a backward racist firm.

[quote=Put Trader]
As for your drivel about running the risk of destroying the branch--bigots practice their bigotry very carefully, it can be happening and you never know it.
[/quote]

They do, and they do so to avoid detection. In this discussion I asked you what would happen if their racist habits were discovered and you fumbled the answer.

Perhaps you should ask yourself, if the world shares your opinions to such a large extent, why would bigots work, as you say yourself, their habits so carefully?

[quote=Put Trader]
In fact it is happening every day, in every way--have you not heard, women and minorities are rarer than hen's teeth in brokerage firms?
[/quote]

Are you aware that hens have ZERO teeth?

Put Trader wrote:

fact it is happening every day, in every way–have you not heard, women
and minorities are rarer than hen’s teeth in brokerage firms?

Are you aware that hens have ZERO teeth?

There was a Downs Syndrome mailboy who used to bring my mail.  Once I told him that something was rarer than hen's teeth and the next day he came back and told me that hens don't have teeth.

The mentally retarded take everything so literally.

[quote=Put Trader]Put Trader wrote:

Are you aware that hens have ZERO teeth?

There was a Downs Syndrome mailboy who used to bring my mail.  Once I told him that something was rarer than hen's teeth and the next day he came back and told me that hens don't have teeth.

The mentally retarded take everything so literally.

[/quote]

Sounds like I'd prefer to have your mailboy as a neighbor than you. At least he wouldn't be building crosses in the backyard to burn on other neighbor's lawns.<?:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" />

I do chuckle, btw, at the fact that, knowing there are minorities hired despite your doctrine on the subject, you attempt to simultaneously claim; 1) It’s isn’t racist to refuse to hire minorities and 2) Racists, working quietly (although they needn’t since their racist views are actually majority opinion, according to you) have ensured that minorities aren’t hired.

Which is it?

While you’re at it, find a way to answer my question about , why, if racists have the majority opinion, they have to hide their racist hiring policies?

Sounds like I'd prefer to have your mailboy as a neighbor than you. At least he wouldn't be building crosses in the backyard to burn on other neighbor's lawns.

Don't be so sure--his favorite joke was "You know why "The N Word" stink?"  We'd always respond no as if this was the first time he asked and he'd deliver that punch line involving blind people then cackle as he headed next door as he continued his rounds.

I do chuckle, btw, at the fact that, knowing there are minorities hired despite your doctrine on the subject, you attempt to simultaneously claim; 1) It’s isn’t racist to refuse to hire minorities and 2) Racists, working quietly (although they needn’t since their racist views are actually majority opinion, according to you) have ensured that minorities aren’t hired.

Which is it?



Because you are so busy prostrating yourself at the altar of political
correctness you have been unable to grasp the full message.



What has been said by me is that it’s wrong to hire Negroes because
they are destined to fail and they should be encouraged to use their
working years to develop a career that they can achieve.  I have
never said that they are not hired–what I did was plant my tongue
firmly in my cheek and mock your concern that there are not enough
women and minorities in the branches.

[quote=stanwbrown]

Again, I doubt it. Smarter people (having more
assets to invest and having little respect for bigots) would not only
not want to be associated with your firm, they’d ask you brokers why
they work at a backward racist firm.

i am sure this thread is interesting, but i lost track after reading the first 500 word prose!

[quote=frumhere]i am sure this thread is interesting, but i lost track after reading the first 500 word prose![/quote]



Holding a Gen Xer’s attention for that many words is challenging, but we’ll try.

Interesting.

Take a week off and it appears that everybody has put on a white hood.

[quote=menotellname]

Interesting.

Take a week off and it appears that everybody has put on a white hood.

[/quote]

Everybody? I suggest you take that reading comprehension course again. It ain’t “everybody” talking about how not hiring minorities is the honorable thing to do, talking about “the negro” and claiming blacks are genetically inferior.<?:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" />

You should be able to narrow in better than that.

Would you like some catsup for that crow?

[quote=stanwbrown][quote=menotellname]

Interesting.

Take a week off and it appears that everybody has put on a white hood.

[/quote]

Everybody? I suggest you take that reading comprehension course again. It ain’t “everybody” talking about how not hiring minorities is the honorable thing to do, talking about “the negro” and claiming blacks are genetically inferior.<?:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" />

You should be able to narrow in better than that.

Would you like some catsup for that crow?

[/quote]

Still got your hood on, Stan?

Perhaps you should cut some eye holes so that you may see.

[quote=menotellname][quote=stanwbrown][quote=menotellname]

Interesting.

Take a week off and it appears that everybody has put on a white hood.

[/quote]

Everybody? I suggest you take that reading comprehension course again. It ain’t “everybody” talking about how not hiring minorities is the honorable thing to do, talking about “the negro” and claiming blacks are genetically inferior.<?:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" />

You should be able to narrow in better than that.

Would you like some catsup for that crow?

[/quote]

Still got your hood on, Stan?

Perhaps you should cut some eye holes so that you may see.

[/quote]

Look, horse's ass, if you're sticking to that story after reading this whole thread you're even more lacking in manhood than I suspected. You were wrong, a man would admit it.

[quote=menotellname]

Interesting.

Take a week off and it appears that everybody has put on a white hood.

[/quote]

Dude...I took a week off and came back to discover that your former buddy Put Trader is still a racist....mabe you should go back and read again?

What a shame, this boy is in the news again.



It be racism! 



http://www.cnn.com/2005/LAW/05/24/tate.arrest/index.html



Lionel Tate, whose first-degree murder conviction in 2001 made him the
youngest person sentenced to life without parole in the United States,
was arrested Monday night after a pizza deliveryman said the
18-year-old robbed him at gunpoint in Pembroke Park, Florida.



At 14, Tate received life without a chance for parole after a jury
found him guilty in the 1999 beating death of a 6-year-old playmate,
but the conviction was overturned on appeal. Tate then accepted a plea
deal.





What would you say his IQ is?  70?  75?  It isn’t any higher. 

I am not sure what a repeat criminal offender has to do with racism.  You don't see people posting pictures or links of Ted Bundy, Jeffery Dahmer, John Wayne Gacy, and BTK on this site.

inquisitive...get your head out of your ass.