[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!