“There have been millions and millions of Chinese-Americans but zero American-Chinese” Harvard grad and Chinese author Eric Liu.
Alrighty then. 
I saw one on TV once. I don’t remember the name.
Of course, there have been white Chinese (Russian 族) for several hundred years, but they don’t seem to get into the news much. There certainly are black Chinese now, children of mixed marriages after the wave of African immigration in the last ~20 years. We’ll see how they do in a few decades.
The second statement is a question about the specificity of the law, not on getting a fair trial. I ask the question because laws on these issues often carry liability even without intent or knowledge.
The first is the only thing that can be interpreted as saying that it is “impossible” to get a fair trial, but you’d have to really want to misinterpret my post to come to that conclusion.
You have two phenomena here. One is a meme (in the broad sense) in the culture war regarding whether the gender pay gap is “myth” or “reality”, and the other is a collection of laws to ban gender discrimination in employment. In the former, people disagree about statistical methodology, and frankly I don’t care because I ain’t got time for that. In the latter, the practical effect is that if you hire A with a fancy job title and B with a meh job title and lower salary but make B do basically the same work as A, and A just happens to be male and B female, a reasonable person will perceive it as gender discrimination in violation of the law, and you will be required to pay one way or another.
When a complaint is filed, you can’t just say oh but this is just a myth in the culture war, so obviously it has no legal basis. If it didn’t have a legal basis, there wouldn’t have been any billion dollar payouts already, but it does, and there have been.
If you think a particular law is defective, go ahead and show us how. 
I’m not saying that. I’m saying that with the incredible reputational, legal, and business costs associated with fighting the claim, the often vague nature of the laws regarding these claims, and the very low cost of settling, this settlement is not strong evidence of gender discrimination. If anything, the low settlement amount and the ability of the company to still deny any wrongdoing indicates a weakness in the government’s case.
For example?
I think there’s another explanation for that (not just in labor disputes but in general), but it’s beside the point.
Some laws have internal controls provisions. The idea is that the law forces you to have internal controls to detect and prevent whatever wrongdoing the government is trying to prevent. Under a provision like this you don’t need to engage in any wrongdoing, no wrongdoing has to occur, but merely the lack of “adequate” internal controls to detect and prevent that wrongdoing could lead to a successful government claim. Rather than fight such claims, most companies would much rather settle as even if they win the lawsuit, they still lose.
I don’t know if the law was vague in this case, which is why I asked the question.
Yes, well, a seatbelt won’t make a difference 99% of the time, but you can still get in trouble for not wearing it or in some cases letting your passengers not wear theirs. Laws exist for reasons.
I don’t know the details of the case you cited either, so at this point it’s all vague and mysterious. 
I didn’t cite a case. I cited a type of provision found in some laws. If you are really interested, you can look up the US Foreign Corrupt Practices Act internal controls provision for a commonly cited one.
I thought we were still talking about your gender pay gap case. The general principle of your business must have a policy on X or else is logical. Of course it can be taken too far, and trying to legislate with universal jurisdiction is always tricky, but I think that’s really a topic for another day. 
We are. I mentioned that vague laws could be an issue in settling such a case and asked whether that was the case. I provided an example of a vague provision seen in some laws, and pointed to one specific law about which I have some expertise.
It’s a myth
Great. Wake me when you can show us a gender-discrimination-in-employment case in which the vagueness of the law and/or the jury’s cultural bias harmed the employer. 
Deleted. Nevermind
Come on, don’t go all sour grapes. If you don’t want to engage on the substance of my argument, perhaps you should do what you said you would do and “leave it at that.”
But you don’t really (or substantively) have an argument. You insinuated that employers paying out in pay equity cases are merely victims of the stupidity of culture war brainwashees, and all you have to back it up is well sometimes the government forces you have to a policy for something, like with the FCPA.
My grapes are sweet, thank you very much. 
Sorry, try again. This time with honesty. Or just “leave it at that.”
I wish you a pleasant and honest day.
If you don’t remember name, then how sure are you?
What Eric Liu of Harvard said was “There have been millions and millions of Chinese Americans but zero American Chinese”. It’s a 1 way street in China’s favor
None of the blacks have Chinese citizenship; permanent residence is not citizenship
1 Like
You can expect most of the mixed blacks (including those who look black, those who look Asian, and those who look mixed) to have citizenship.
Ditto the mixed whites, mixed other Asians, etc.
The one on TV was someone who moved over way back, like in the 60’s, and managed to stay one way or another. I’m not in the habit of recording stuff I see on the tube, sorry. 
Come to think of it, he might have had mixed ancestry that they just didn’t bother mentioning – westerners hanging out in China in the Qing Dynasty were a thing after all – but he definitely looked white. 