|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
On December 25 2013 02:20 Mercy13 wrote:Show nested quote +On December 25 2013 02:13 Crushinator wrote:On December 25 2013 02:05 Mercy13 wrote:On December 25 2013 01:44 Crushinator wrote:On December 25 2013 01:36 Acrofales wrote:On December 25 2013 01:31 Crushinator wrote:On December 25 2013 00:39 KwarK wrote:On December 25 2013 00:25 Crushinator wrote:On December 25 2013 00:15 KwarK wrote:On December 25 2013 00:11 Crushinator wrote:
[quote]
So we should just believe something for ideological reasons, without evidence instead? Explanations that require widespread irrationality, are not good explanations at all. There is a lot of evidence for discriminatory employment practices, the fact that you're blissfully unaware of it doesn't discredit it. Furthermore your belief in rational humans is purely ideological, we're about to celebrate the birth of a guy who wasn't born this time of year by telling our kids that a fat man is going to climb down a chimney and putting trees indoors. And yet you think sexism is too irrational for humans to do. I do not dispute discriminatory employement practices at all, my acknowledgement of the wage gap shuld be evidence of that. I dispute the reasons for the discrepancies, whether or not they are the result of actors making rational decisions based on the limited information presented, or are making irrational decisions based on sexism, and specifically patriarchy. Okay, imagine there was a way you could put job competency into a simple number. Your contention, as I understand it, is that men can have numbers from 0 (shit) to 100 (amazing) while women max out at 80 because they're not as good as men which is why they get paid less. What the research into employment practices show is that a male candidate who would rank a 60 is more likely to get the job than a female candidate who would also rank a 60. The same resume, listing the same educational experiences, same skills etc. This is not rational decision making. The decision can be rational if for example firms expect that the female candidate will be absent more than her male counterpart due to children. My argument is that "hidden" factors such as those largely account for the wage gap, and not irrational discrimination. I should once again point out that your presentation of my beliefs about differing intellectual abilities is inaccurate. That belief is only rational if it is also TRUE. So back it up with data! I do believe that it a well established fact that there is a greater cost to parenthood for firms when it comes to mothers than to fathers, which is why i chose this factor. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parental_leaveInterestingly the countries that have more equal parental leave schemes (norway, sweden), also tend ot have smaller wage gaps. Though admittedly, those countries tend to have less inequalities in general. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:SOWM2010_female_earned_income_ratio.svgI will present some more evidence when I get the chance, though even in absence of evidence for both I find rationality to be a more attractive hypothesis than irrationality. Sorry for posting this again if you have already read it, but it seems like you are ignoring it: There are observable differences in the attributes of men and women that account for most of the wage gap. Statistical analysis that includes those variables has produced results that collectively account for between 65.1 and 76.4 percent of a raw gender wage gap of 20.4 percent, and thereby leave an adjusted gender wage gap that is between 4.8 and 7.1 percent.
SourceThis study controlled for Occupation, Human Capital Development, Work Experience, Career Interruptions, Motherhood, and Industry, and still found a wage gap of between 4.8% and 7.1%. A 5% wage gap might not seem like a big deal on the surface, but many people in the US would consider themselves lucky to get a 2.5% wage increase per year. Even when all the "observable differences" (i.e. rational differentiators) between men and women are taken into account, women still get paid less than men. Why does this not support my argument? By taking into account all the observable factors for rational decision making the study reduces the wage gap from something like 30% (right?) to a much lower number. Is it not likely that there are other factors, observable or otherwise, that go into the expectations of productivity differences, that could further reduce the wage gap to some amount less than 5%? It's possible, what other factors might there be? Have you been able to find a study that takes these other factors into account and finds that there isn't a wage gap? A gap 5% to 7% is a lot less than 30%, but it's still a big deal. If I were to receive a 5% cut in salary I would have to either move to a cheaper apartment or stop saving for retirement. Your argument is when observable factors are taken into account, the wage gap narrows. Therefore, it is more likely than not that there are additional observable factors that academics have ignored that would virtually eliminate the wage gap. And you haven't presented any data to back this argument up. This seems very irrational to me.
'
I don't know of any data to back this up. My hypothesis is indeed that other factors for rational decision making can further reduce the gap. The alternative is an expectation of widespread irrational sexism, but you have no data to back that up either. I prefer my explanation.
|
On December 25 2013 02:20 Crushinator wrote:Show nested quote +On December 25 2013 02:17 farvacola wrote:On December 25 2013 02:14 Crushinator wrote:On December 25 2013 02:07 KwarK wrote:On December 25 2013 02:03 Crushinator wrote:On December 25 2013 01:59 KwarK wrote:On December 25 2013 01:54 Crushinator wrote:On December 25 2013 01:46 KwarK wrote:On December 25 2013 01:45 Crushinator wrote:On December 25 2013 01:37 KwarK wrote:
[quote]
Okay so if I'm understanding how you think this works then you believe that for a very, very long time over a countless number of instances irrational decision making was pursued to create a very suboptimal outcome with nothing bad ever happening from it and then, at some point in the 20th Century, all the irrational decision making stopped because bad stuff started happening from it and the reason why there can be no irrational decisions now is because if there were any then they would be stamped out by the bad stuff which started happening and therefore everything that happens now must be rational and if it looks a lot like the stuff that was irrational that people used to do without any bad stuff happening to them then that's coincidence because it can't be the same stuff because even though nothing bad happened to them something in the mid 20th Century changed everything and now bad stuff will happen.
That about cover it? No that is pretty much completely wrong, I don't think there is much point debating you to be honest. Okay, so was forcing half of the human population into domestic labour on the basis of something unrelated to their ability to perform domestic labour an irrational waste of their intellectual capabilities that led to a very suboptimal outcome? y/n y You seem to confuse the rational actor assumption in a market setting, with institutions based on mostly irrational religious and ideological notions. Also, why in your opinion did people start acting less irrationally? Was it the bra burning that snapped them out of it? Why did the optimal solution not prevail back then where now it must according to you? Women did not have full access to the labour market in the past. Now they do, I don't understand why this is difficult to follow. So why was the irrational solution of denying women to the labour market prevailing back then when it was suboptimal? This is not a question of economics. Of course it is, you just can't satisfactorily answer it beyond simply repeating the dogma of the self-assured economist. How do you figure that?
You ask your opponents evidence that we deviate from what you seem to think is the norm, but you fail yourself to provide any evidence that market efficiency is indeed the norm. Cancelling the derivative of a function is not a proof btw.
|
On December 25 2013 02:20 Crushinator wrote:Show nested quote +On December 25 2013 02:17 farvacola wrote:On December 25 2013 02:14 Crushinator wrote:On December 25 2013 02:07 KwarK wrote:On December 25 2013 02:03 Crushinator wrote:On December 25 2013 01:59 KwarK wrote:On December 25 2013 01:54 Crushinator wrote:On December 25 2013 01:46 KwarK wrote:On December 25 2013 01:45 Crushinator wrote:On December 25 2013 01:37 KwarK wrote:
[quote]
Okay so if I'm understanding how you think this works then you believe that for a very, very long time over a countless number of instances irrational decision making was pursued to create a very suboptimal outcome with nothing bad ever happening from it and then, at some point in the 20th Century, all the irrational decision making stopped because bad stuff started happening from it and the reason why there can be no irrational decisions now is because if there were any then they would be stamped out by the bad stuff which started happening and therefore everything that happens now must be rational and if it looks a lot like the stuff that was irrational that people used to do without any bad stuff happening to them then that's coincidence because it can't be the same stuff because even though nothing bad happened to them something in the mid 20th Century changed everything and now bad stuff will happen.
That about cover it? No that is pretty much completely wrong, I don't think there is much point debating you to be honest. Okay, so was forcing half of the human population into domestic labour on the basis of something unrelated to their ability to perform domestic labour an irrational waste of their intellectual capabilities that led to a very suboptimal outcome? y/n y You seem to confuse the rational actor assumption in a market setting, with institutions based on mostly irrational religious and ideological notions. Also, why in your opinion did people start acting less irrationally? Was it the bra burning that snapped them out of it? Why did the optimal solution not prevail back then where now it must according to you? Women did not have full access to the labour market in the past. Now they do, I don't understand why this is difficult to follow. So why was the irrational solution of denying women to the labour market prevailing back then when it was suboptimal? This is not a question of economics. Of course it is, you just can't satisfactorily answer it beyond simply repeating the dogma of the self-assured economist. How do you figure that?
The historic prevalence of "irrational" suboptimality in labor dynamics, be it through slave labor, subjugated women, or underclass exploitation, is most definitely a question of economics, and it is highly important that an economist interested in supporting the argument that contemporary society is somehow "saved" from suboptimality do some work in showing that society today is in some way fundamentally different enough from the past to toss aside the lessons of history.
|
On December 25 2013 02:27 corumjhaelen wrote:Show nested quote +On December 25 2013 02:20 Crushinator wrote:On December 25 2013 02:17 farvacola wrote:On December 25 2013 02:14 Crushinator wrote:On December 25 2013 02:07 KwarK wrote:On December 25 2013 02:03 Crushinator wrote:On December 25 2013 01:59 KwarK wrote:On December 25 2013 01:54 Crushinator wrote:On December 25 2013 01:46 KwarK wrote:On December 25 2013 01:45 Crushinator wrote:
[quote]
No that is pretty much completely wrong, I don't think there is much point debating you to be honest. Okay, so was forcing half of the human population into domestic labour on the basis of something unrelated to their ability to perform domestic labour an irrational waste of their intellectual capabilities that led to a very suboptimal outcome? y/n y You seem to confuse the rational actor assumption in a market setting, with institutions based on mostly irrational religious and ideological notions. Also, why in your opinion did people start acting less irrationally? Was it the bra burning that snapped them out of it? Why did the optimal solution not prevail back then where now it must according to you? Women did not have full access to the labour market in the past. Now they do, I don't understand why this is difficult to follow. So why was the irrational solution of denying women to the labour market prevailing back then when it was suboptimal? This is not a question of economics. Of course it is, you just can't satisfactorily answer it beyond simply repeating the dogma of the self-assured economist. How do you figure that? You ask your opponents evidence that we deviate from what you seem to think is the norm, but you fail yourself to provide any evidence that market efficiency is indeed the norm. Cancelling the derivative of a function is not a proof btw.
Oh just because i believe that the rational actors assumption holds approximately true in the labour market does not mean that i think the market is efficient. I don't think information is perfect for example.
|
United States43598 Posts
On December 25 2013 02:26 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On December 25 2013 02:17 KwarK wrote:On December 25 2013 02:13 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On December 25 2013 01:46 KwarK wrote:On December 25 2013 01:45 Crushinator wrote:On December 25 2013 01:37 KwarK wrote:On December 25 2013 01:06 Crushinator wrote:On December 25 2013 01:02 KwarK wrote:On December 25 2013 01:00 Crushinator wrote:On December 25 2013 00:53 KwarK wrote:
[quote]
You haven't explained why women doing the more time consuming work while men do the more intellectual work is a rational allocation of household labour in every case, including the cases in which the woman was significantly more able at the intellectual work. Please do so. I don't understand why this is required. Insitutionalized discrimination based on ideology and religion does not need to be rational, in order for the rational actor assumption in an employment context to hold approximately true. So we're happy that there was institutionalised discrimination which was extremely irrational throughout history without the invisible hand striking it down with its perfectly rational prophets bestowed with perfect information? When did this state of affairs end according to you? I don't get why you are using the invisible hand analogy, rational actors and market forces require no exogenous help. I decline to comment on when it ended exactly, somewhere in latter half of the previous century i suppose. Okay so if I'm understanding how you think this works then you believe that for a very, very long time over a countless number of instances irrational decision making was pursued to create a very suboptimal outcome with nothing bad ever happening from it and then, at some point in the 20th Century, all the irrational decision making stopped because bad stuff started happening from it and the reason why there can be no irrational decisions now is because if there were any then they would be stamped out by the bad stuff which started happening and therefore everything that happens now must be rational and if it looks a lot like the stuff that was irrational that people used to do without any bad stuff happening to them then that's coincidence because it can't be the same stuff because even though nothing bad happened to them something in the mid 20th Century changed everything and now bad stuff will happen. That about cover it? No that is pretty much completely wrong, I don't think there is much point debating you to be honest. Okay, so was forcing half of the human population into domestic labour on the basis of something unrelated to their ability to perform domestic labour an irrational waste of their intellectual capabilities that led to a very suboptimal outcome? y/n In what time period? Having women do domestic labor back in 1813 could very well have been as close to optimal as you could reasonably expect. How so? Unless the greatest minds of the time were all men, which would require women to be wholly inferior to men to be true, you've got a lot of potential being wasted doing chores while inferior minds are tackling the problems of the age in shitty ways. But is getting those brilliant female minds into those rolls a free activity? Intellectual activities were a small portion of activities back then so the gains won't be particularly large.
The tradeoff would be the men doing the domestic tasks with the gain being the difference between the two. I'm not suggesting you have twice as many politicians/doctors/engineers as the society needs, I'm suggesting you promote the superior women and demote the inferior men to optimise.
|
On December 25 2013 02:30 Crushinator wrote:Show nested quote +On December 25 2013 02:27 corumjhaelen wrote:On December 25 2013 02:20 Crushinator wrote:On December 25 2013 02:17 farvacola wrote:On December 25 2013 02:14 Crushinator wrote:On December 25 2013 02:07 KwarK wrote:On December 25 2013 02:03 Crushinator wrote:On December 25 2013 01:59 KwarK wrote:On December 25 2013 01:54 Crushinator wrote:On December 25 2013 01:46 KwarK wrote:
[quote]
Okay, so was forcing half of the human population into domestic labour on the basis of something unrelated to their ability to perform domestic labour an irrational waste of their intellectual capabilities that led to a very suboptimal outcome?
y/n y You seem to confuse the rational actor assumption in a market setting, with institutions based on mostly irrational religious and ideological notions. Also, why in your opinion did people start acting less irrationally? Was it the bra burning that snapped them out of it? Why did the optimal solution not prevail back then where now it must according to you? Women did not have full access to the labour market in the past. Now they do, I don't understand why this is difficult to follow. So why was the irrational solution of denying women to the labour market prevailing back then when it was suboptimal? This is not a question of economics. Of course it is, you just can't satisfactorily answer it beyond simply repeating the dogma of the self-assured economist. How do you figure that? You ask your opponents evidence that we deviate from what you seem to think is the norm, but you fail yourself to provide any evidence that market efficiency is indeed the norm. Cancelling the derivative of a function is not a proof btw. Oh just because i believe that the rational actors assumption holds approximately true in the labour market does not mean that i think the market is efficient. I don't think information is perfect for example.
My question is why do you believe that ?
|
On December 25 2013 02:30 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On December 25 2013 02:26 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On December 25 2013 02:17 KwarK wrote:On December 25 2013 02:13 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On December 25 2013 01:46 KwarK wrote:On December 25 2013 01:45 Crushinator wrote:On December 25 2013 01:37 KwarK wrote:On December 25 2013 01:06 Crushinator wrote:On December 25 2013 01:02 KwarK wrote:On December 25 2013 01:00 Crushinator wrote:
[quote]
I don't understand why this is required. Insitutionalized discrimination based on ideology and religion does not need to be rational, in order for the rational actor assumption in an employment context to hold approximately true. So we're happy that there was institutionalised discrimination which was extremely irrational throughout history without the invisible hand striking it down with its perfectly rational prophets bestowed with perfect information? When did this state of affairs end according to you? I don't get why you are using the invisible hand analogy, rational actors and market forces require no exogenous help. I decline to comment on when it ended exactly, somewhere in latter half of the previous century i suppose. Okay so if I'm understanding how you think this works then you believe that for a very, very long time over a countless number of instances irrational decision making was pursued to create a very suboptimal outcome with nothing bad ever happening from it and then, at some point in the 20th Century, all the irrational decision making stopped because bad stuff started happening from it and the reason why there can be no irrational decisions now is because if there were any then they would be stamped out by the bad stuff which started happening and therefore everything that happens now must be rational and if it looks a lot like the stuff that was irrational that people used to do without any bad stuff happening to them then that's coincidence because it can't be the same stuff because even though nothing bad happened to them something in the mid 20th Century changed everything and now bad stuff will happen. That about cover it? No that is pretty much completely wrong, I don't think there is much point debating you to be honest. Okay, so was forcing half of the human population into domestic labour on the basis of something unrelated to their ability to perform domestic labour an irrational waste of their intellectual capabilities that led to a very suboptimal outcome? y/n In what time period? Having women do domestic labor back in 1813 could very well have been as close to optimal as you could reasonably expect. How so? Unless the greatest minds of the time were all men, which would require women to be wholly inferior to men to be true, you've got a lot of potential being wasted doing chores while inferior minds are tackling the problems of the age in shitty ways. But is getting those brilliant female minds into those rolls a free activity? Intellectual activities were a small portion of activities back then so the gains won't be particularly large. The tradeoff would be the men doing the domestic tasks with the gain being the difference between the two. I'm not suggesting you have twice as many politicians/doctors/engineers as the society needs, I'm suggesting you promote the superior women and demote the inferior men to optimise.
There's a greater tradeoff than that though. You'd need gender blind training, which is expensive, particularly if you apply it over a wide population.
|
On December 25 2013 02:26 Crushinator wrote:Show nested quote +On December 25 2013 02:20 Mercy13 wrote:On December 25 2013 02:13 Crushinator wrote:On December 25 2013 02:05 Mercy13 wrote:On December 25 2013 01:44 Crushinator wrote:On December 25 2013 01:36 Acrofales wrote:On December 25 2013 01:31 Crushinator wrote:On December 25 2013 00:39 KwarK wrote:On December 25 2013 00:25 Crushinator wrote:On December 25 2013 00:15 KwarK wrote:
[quote]
There is a lot of evidence for discriminatory employment practices, the fact that you're blissfully unaware of it doesn't discredit it. Furthermore your belief in rational humans is purely ideological, we're about to celebrate the birth of a guy who wasn't born this time of year by telling our kids that a fat man is going to climb down a chimney and putting trees indoors. And yet you think sexism is too irrational for humans to do. I do not dispute discriminatory employement practices at all, my acknowledgement of the wage gap shuld be evidence of that. I dispute the reasons for the discrepancies, whether or not they are the result of actors making rational decisions based on the limited information presented, or are making irrational decisions based on sexism, and specifically patriarchy. Okay, imagine there was a way you could put job competency into a simple number. Your contention, as I understand it, is that men can have numbers from 0 (shit) to 100 (amazing) while women max out at 80 because they're not as good as men which is why they get paid less. What the research into employment practices show is that a male candidate who would rank a 60 is more likely to get the job than a female candidate who would also rank a 60. The same resume, listing the same educational experiences, same skills etc. This is not rational decision making. The decision can be rational if for example firms expect that the female candidate will be absent more than her male counterpart due to children. My argument is that "hidden" factors such as those largely account for the wage gap, and not irrational discrimination. I should once again point out that your presentation of my beliefs about differing intellectual abilities is inaccurate. That belief is only rational if it is also TRUE. So back it up with data! I do believe that it a well established fact that there is a greater cost to parenthood for firms when it comes to mothers than to fathers, which is why i chose this factor. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parental_leaveInterestingly the countries that have more equal parental leave schemes (norway, sweden), also tend ot have smaller wage gaps. Though admittedly, those countries tend to have less inequalities in general. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:SOWM2010_female_earned_income_ratio.svgI will present some more evidence when I get the chance, though even in absence of evidence for both I find rationality to be a more attractive hypothesis than irrationality. Sorry for posting this again if you have already read it, but it seems like you are ignoring it: There are observable differences in the attributes of men and women that account for most of the wage gap. Statistical analysis that includes those variables has produced results that collectively account for between 65.1 and 76.4 percent of a raw gender wage gap of 20.4 percent, and thereby leave an adjusted gender wage gap that is between 4.8 and 7.1 percent.
SourceThis study controlled for Occupation, Human Capital Development, Work Experience, Career Interruptions, Motherhood, and Industry, and still found a wage gap of between 4.8% and 7.1%. A 5% wage gap might not seem like a big deal on the surface, but many people in the US would consider themselves lucky to get a 2.5% wage increase per year. Even when all the "observable differences" (i.e. rational differentiators) between men and women are taken into account, women still get paid less than men. Why does this not support my argument? By taking into account all the observable factors for rational decision making the study reduces the wage gap from something like 30% (right?) to a much lower number. Is it not likely that there are other factors, observable or otherwise, that go into the expectations of productivity differences, that could further reduce the wage gap to some amount less than 5%? It's possible, what other factors might there be? Have you been able to find a study that takes these other factors into account and finds that there isn't a wage gap? A gap 5% to 7% is a lot less than 30%, but it's still a big deal. If I were to receive a 5% cut in salary I would have to either move to a cheaper apartment or stop saving for retirement. Your argument is when observable factors are taken into account, the wage gap narrows. Therefore, it is more likely than not that there are additional observable factors that academics have ignored that would virtually eliminate the wage gap. And you haven't presented any data to back this argument up. This seems very irrational to me. ' I don't know of any data to back this up. My hypothesis is indeed that other factors for rational decision making can further reduce the gap. The alternative is an expectation of widespread irrational sexism, but you have no data to back that up either. I prefer my explanation.
The data which evidences "widespread irrational sexism" is that even when academics take every single rational factor into account that they can think of, they STILL can't account for the wage gap. Put another way, academics can only explain the wage disparity by taking into account irrational factors.
In addition, Kwark posted an article earlier that demonstrated that recruiters prefer men to women, even when they are identical besides gender.
A quick google search will turn up dozens of other studies that have found sexism in the labor market as well as elsewhere.
I'm concerned that you actually believe in the hypothetical rational actor. I always assumed this concept was used by economists the same way physicists use the frictionless vacuum. It's a tool that can be used to make science easier, but it does not exist in reality.
|
On December 25 2013 02:30 Crushinator wrote:Show nested quote +On December 25 2013 02:27 corumjhaelen wrote:On December 25 2013 02:20 Crushinator wrote:On December 25 2013 02:17 farvacola wrote:On December 25 2013 02:14 Crushinator wrote:On December 25 2013 02:07 KwarK wrote:On December 25 2013 02:03 Crushinator wrote:On December 25 2013 01:59 KwarK wrote:On December 25 2013 01:54 Crushinator wrote:On December 25 2013 01:46 KwarK wrote:
[quote]
Okay, so was forcing half of the human population into domestic labour on the basis of something unrelated to their ability to perform domestic labour an irrational waste of their intellectual capabilities that led to a very suboptimal outcome?
y/n y You seem to confuse the rational actor assumption in a market setting, with institutions based on mostly irrational religious and ideological notions. Also, why in your opinion did people start acting less irrationally? Was it the bra burning that snapped them out of it? Why did the optimal solution not prevail back then where now it must according to you? Women did not have full access to the labour market in the past. Now they do, I don't understand why this is difficult to follow. So why was the irrational solution of denying women to the labour market prevailing back then when it was suboptimal? This is not a question of economics. Of course it is, you just can't satisfactorily answer it beyond simply repeating the dogma of the self-assured economist. How do you figure that? You ask your opponents evidence that we deviate from what you seem to think is the norm, but you fail yourself to provide any evidence that market efficiency is indeed the norm. Cancelling the derivative of a function is not a proof btw. Oh just because i believe that the rational actors assumption holds approximately true in the labour market does not mean that i think the market is efficient. I don't think information is perfect for example.
On what ground do you assume rational actors is approximately true ? Because the models showed some results ?
On December 25 2013 02:43 Mercy13 wrote:Show nested quote +On December 25 2013 02:26 Crushinator wrote:On December 25 2013 02:20 Mercy13 wrote:On December 25 2013 02:13 Crushinator wrote:On December 25 2013 02:05 Mercy13 wrote:On December 25 2013 01:44 Crushinator wrote:On December 25 2013 01:36 Acrofales wrote:On December 25 2013 01:31 Crushinator wrote:On December 25 2013 00:39 KwarK wrote:On December 25 2013 00:25 Crushinator wrote:
[quote]
I do not dispute discriminatory employement practices at all, my acknowledgement of the wage gap shuld be evidence of that. I dispute the reasons for the discrepancies, whether or not they are the result of actors making rational decisions based on the limited information presented, or are making irrational decisions based on sexism, and specifically patriarchy. Okay, imagine there was a way you could put job competency into a simple number. Your contention, as I understand it, is that men can have numbers from 0 (shit) to 100 (amazing) while women max out at 80 because they're not as good as men which is why they get paid less. What the research into employment practices show is that a male candidate who would rank a 60 is more likely to get the job than a female candidate who would also rank a 60. The same resume, listing the same educational experiences, same skills etc. This is not rational decision making. The decision can be rational if for example firms expect that the female candidate will be absent more than her male counterpart due to children. My argument is that "hidden" factors such as those largely account for the wage gap, and not irrational discrimination. I should once again point out that your presentation of my beliefs about differing intellectual abilities is inaccurate. That belief is only rational if it is also TRUE. So back it up with data! I do believe that it a well established fact that there is a greater cost to parenthood for firms when it comes to mothers than to fathers, which is why i chose this factor. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parental_leaveInterestingly the countries that have more equal parental leave schemes (norway, sweden), also tend ot have smaller wage gaps. Though admittedly, those countries tend to have less inequalities in general. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:SOWM2010_female_earned_income_ratio.svgI will present some more evidence when I get the chance, though even in absence of evidence for both I find rationality to be a more attractive hypothesis than irrationality. Sorry for posting this again if you have already read it, but it seems like you are ignoring it: There are observable differences in the attributes of men and women that account for most of the wage gap. Statistical analysis that includes those variables has produced results that collectively account for between 65.1 and 76.4 percent of a raw gender wage gap of 20.4 percent, and thereby leave an adjusted gender wage gap that is between 4.8 and 7.1 percent.
SourceThis study controlled for Occupation, Human Capital Development, Work Experience, Career Interruptions, Motherhood, and Industry, and still found a wage gap of between 4.8% and 7.1%. A 5% wage gap might not seem like a big deal on the surface, but many people in the US would consider themselves lucky to get a 2.5% wage increase per year. Even when all the "observable differences" (i.e. rational differentiators) between men and women are taken into account, women still get paid less than men. Why does this not support my argument? By taking into account all the observable factors for rational decision making the study reduces the wage gap from something like 30% (right?) to a much lower number. Is it not likely that there are other factors, observable or otherwise, that go into the expectations of productivity differences, that could further reduce the wage gap to some amount less than 5%? It's possible, what other factors might there be? Have you been able to find a study that takes these other factors into account and finds that there isn't a wage gap? A gap 5% to 7% is a lot less than 30%, but it's still a big deal. If I were to receive a 5% cut in salary I would have to either move to a cheaper apartment or stop saving for retirement. Your argument is when observable factors are taken into account, the wage gap narrows. Therefore, it is more likely than not that there are additional observable factors that academics have ignored that would virtually eliminate the wage gap. And you haven't presented any data to back this argument up. This seems very irrational to me. ' I don't know of any data to back this up. My hypothesis is indeed that other factors for rational decision making can further reduce the gap. The alternative is an expectation of widespread irrational sexism, but you have no data to back that up either. I prefer my explanation. The data which evidences "widespread irrational sexism" is that even when academics take every single rational factor into account that they can think of, they STILL can't account for the wage gap. Put another way, academics can only explain the wage disparity by taking into account irrational factors. In addition, Kwark posted an article earlier that demonstrated that recruiters prefer men to women, even when they are identical besides gender. A quick google search will turn up dozens of other studies that have found sexism in the labor market as well as elsewhere. I'm concerned that you actually believe in the hypothetical rational actor. I always assumed this concept was used by economists the same way physicists use the frictionless vacuum. It's a tool that can be used to make science easier, but it does not exist in reality.
It's the reason why economy is complete shit right now. There are no course in history of economical thought, no course in epistemology in almost all degrees. Student have no critical thought, especially when they are evaluated on the basis that those theories are true everything equal. Teacher rarely take the time to insist on all the situation in which the hypothesis are ridiculously false.
It's quite sad because even someone like Milton Friedman has a pretty clear point of view on model's hypothesis and their truthfulness. The prediction potential of a model based on a certain hypothesis has no link at all with the truthfulness of those hypothesis in reality. A lot of very useful models on banking have no money or no banks at all... but you don't see anyone actually considering that banks and money don't exist in reality.
|
CINCINNATI (AP) -- A federal judge's decision ordering Ohio authorities to recognize gay marriages on death certificates may be a narrow ruling, but observers -- and even the judge himself -- predict it will spark further litigation aimed at striking down the state's ban on gay marriage.
In a broadly written ruling Monday, Judge Timothy Black said Ohio's ban is unconstitutional and that states cannot discriminate against same-sex couples simply because some voters don't like homosexuality.
Although the ruling applies only to death certificates, his statements about the ban were sweeping and unequivocal, and are expected to incite further litigation challenging the law. Ohio's attorney general said the state will appeal.
Black cited the Supreme Court's June decision striking down part of a federal anti-gay marriage law, saying the lower courts are now tasked with applying that ruling.
"And the question presented is whether a state can do what the federal government cannot -- i.e., discriminate against same-sex couples ... simply because the majority of the voters don't like homosexuality (or at least didn't in 2004)," Black said in reference to the year Ohio's gay marriage ban passed. "Under the Constitution of the United States, the answer is no."
His ruling stems from a July lawsuit by two gay Ohio men whose spouses recently died and wanted to be recognized as married on their death certificates.
Source
|
On December 25 2013 02:33 corumjhaelen wrote:Show nested quote +On December 25 2013 02:30 Crushinator wrote:On December 25 2013 02:27 corumjhaelen wrote:On December 25 2013 02:20 Crushinator wrote:On December 25 2013 02:17 farvacola wrote:On December 25 2013 02:14 Crushinator wrote:On December 25 2013 02:07 KwarK wrote:On December 25 2013 02:03 Crushinator wrote:On December 25 2013 01:59 KwarK wrote:On December 25 2013 01:54 Crushinator wrote:
[quote]
y
You seem to confuse the rational actor assumption in a market setting, with institutions based on mostly irrational religious and ideological notions.
Also, why in your opinion did people start acting less irrationally? Was it the bra burning that snapped them out of it? Why did the optimal solution not prevail back then where now it must according to you? Women did not have full access to the labour market in the past. Now they do, I don't understand why this is difficult to follow. So why was the irrational solution of denying women to the labour market prevailing back then when it was suboptimal? This is not a question of economics. Of course it is, you just can't satisfactorily answer it beyond simply repeating the dogma of the self-assured economist. How do you figure that? You ask your opponents evidence that we deviate from what you seem to think is the norm, but you fail yourself to provide any evidence that market efficiency is indeed the norm. Cancelling the derivative of a function is not a proof btw. Oh just because i believe that the rational actors assumption holds approximately true in the labour market does not mean that i think the market is efficient. I don't think information is perfect for example. My question is why do you believe that ?
If you reject the notion of rational actors, you can throw out a huge portion of economic thought, and models that provide us with good results. It is a fundamental premise of economics. You would reduce economics to: people just do whatever. I am not prepared to throw out something as basic as rational actors unless faced with extraordinary evidence.
It is much easier to throw out any models basic assumptions, like the simple models that assume perfect mobility or information, those assumptions need not hold in reality to provide us with useful insights. Rational actors is pretty much required, in my opinion.
|
On December 25 2013 03:16 Crushinator wrote:Show nested quote +On December 25 2013 02:33 corumjhaelen wrote:On December 25 2013 02:30 Crushinator wrote:On December 25 2013 02:27 corumjhaelen wrote:On December 25 2013 02:20 Crushinator wrote:On December 25 2013 02:17 farvacola wrote:On December 25 2013 02:14 Crushinator wrote:On December 25 2013 02:07 KwarK wrote:On December 25 2013 02:03 Crushinator wrote:On December 25 2013 01:59 KwarK wrote:
[quote]
Why did the optimal solution not prevail back then where now it must according to you? Women did not have full access to the labour market in the past. Now they do, I don't understand why this is difficult to follow. So why was the irrational solution of denying women to the labour market prevailing back then when it was suboptimal? This is not a question of economics. Of course it is, you just can't satisfactorily answer it beyond simply repeating the dogma of the self-assured economist. How do you figure that? You ask your opponents evidence that we deviate from what you seem to think is the norm, but you fail yourself to provide any evidence that market efficiency is indeed the norm. Cancelling the derivative of a function is not a proof btw. Oh just because i believe that the rational actors assumption holds approximately true in the labour market does not mean that i think the market is efficient. I don't think information is perfect for example. My question is why do you believe that ? If you reject the notion of rational actors, you can throw out a huge portion of economic thought, and models that provide us with good results. It is a fundamental premise of economics. You would reduce economics to: people just do whatever. I am not prepared to throw out something as basic as rational actors unless faced with extraordinary evidence.
But the fact that a model have good results have no relation at all with the fact that that model is "true" in reality or not... It's also a fundamental premise of economics : models are oversimplifications that are made for their prediction potential and not to actually describe what is. It's the basis of what Friedman called positive economics back in 1953, and it's the basis of modern economy too.
Arrow & Debreu and afterwards Sonnenschein proved perfect and pure competition is wrong. So what do you think we still teach pure and perfect competition, equilibrium and everything else around that since we know it does not exist in reality ? There are countless exemple like that in economic theory.
|
United States43598 Posts
On December 25 2013 03:16 Crushinator wrote:Show nested quote +On December 25 2013 02:33 corumjhaelen wrote:On December 25 2013 02:30 Crushinator wrote:On December 25 2013 02:27 corumjhaelen wrote:On December 25 2013 02:20 Crushinator wrote:On December 25 2013 02:17 farvacola wrote:On December 25 2013 02:14 Crushinator wrote:On December 25 2013 02:07 KwarK wrote:On December 25 2013 02:03 Crushinator wrote:On December 25 2013 01:59 KwarK wrote:
[quote]
Why did the optimal solution not prevail back then where now it must according to you? Women did not have full access to the labour market in the past. Now they do, I don't understand why this is difficult to follow. So why was the irrational solution of denying women to the labour market prevailing back then when it was suboptimal? This is not a question of economics. Of course it is, you just can't satisfactorily answer it beyond simply repeating the dogma of the self-assured economist. How do you figure that? You ask your opponents evidence that we deviate from what you seem to think is the norm, but you fail yourself to provide any evidence that market efficiency is indeed the norm. Cancelling the derivative of a function is not a proof btw. Oh just because i believe that the rational actors assumption holds approximately true in the labour market does not mean that i think the market is efficient. I don't think information is perfect for example. My question is why do you believe that ? If you reject the notion of rational actors, you can throw out a huge portion of economic thought, and models that provide us with good results. It is a fundamental premise of economics. You would reduce economics to: people just do whatever. I am not prepared to throw out something as basic as rational actors unless faced with extraordinary evidence.
Rationality certainly has a part to play but to go as far as you do and categorically deny things in the face of evidence because they would not occur in a system with perfectly rational actors acting with perfect information is madness. Better run businesses tend to success more but that doesn't mean that all the major competitors can't simultaneously make the same irrational error, or that a better business and a worse business can't co-exist and prosper, nor that the irrational error is always going to be the breaking point that pushes a business under. Human nature cannot be disregarded and humans are not rational creatures.
|
Sarah Palin admitted Monday night that she never actually read the GQ interview that surfaced anti-gay, racist comments made by the star of "Duck Dynasty," which she staunchly defended last week as "free speech."
Fox News host Greta Van Susteren asked Palin if she took issue with the manner in which "Duck Dynasty" patriarch Phil Robertson made his comments, which Van Susteren characterized as "graphic" and "offensive," even if she agreed with the sustance of what Robertson said.
"I haven't read the article. I don't know exactly how he said it," Palin responded. "But what he was doing was in response to a question about a lifestyle he disagrees with, and yet he has said over and over again he doesn't hate the person engaging in a lifestyle he disagrees with."
The substance of Robertson's comments was that homosexuality is a sin -- one he equated with "bestiality." "Don’t be deceived," Robertson told GQ, paraphrasing the Bible. "Neither the adulterers, the idolaters, the male prostitutes, the homosexual offenders, the greedy, the drunkards, the slanderers, the swindlers—they won’t inherit the kingdom of God. Don’t deceive yourself. It’s not right.”
Source
|
On December 25 2013 03:20 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On December 25 2013 03:16 Crushinator wrote:On December 25 2013 02:33 corumjhaelen wrote:On December 25 2013 02:30 Crushinator wrote:On December 25 2013 02:27 corumjhaelen wrote:On December 25 2013 02:20 Crushinator wrote:On December 25 2013 02:17 farvacola wrote:On December 25 2013 02:14 Crushinator wrote:On December 25 2013 02:07 KwarK wrote:On December 25 2013 02:03 Crushinator wrote:
[quote]
Women did not have full access to the labour market in the past. Now they do, I don't understand why this is difficult to follow. So why was the irrational solution of denying women to the labour market prevailing back then when it was suboptimal? This is not a question of economics. Of course it is, you just can't satisfactorily answer it beyond simply repeating the dogma of the self-assured economist. How do you figure that? You ask your opponents evidence that we deviate from what you seem to think is the norm, but you fail yourself to provide any evidence that market efficiency is indeed the norm. Cancelling the derivative of a function is not a proof btw. Oh just because i believe that the rational actors assumption holds approximately true in the labour market does not mean that i think the market is efficient. I don't think information is perfect for example. My question is why do you believe that ? If you reject the notion of rational actors, you can throw out a huge portion of economic thought, and models that provide us with good results. It is a fundamental premise of economics. You would reduce economics to: people just do whatever. I am not prepared to throw out something as basic as rational actors unless faced with extraordinary evidence. Rationality certainly has a part to play but to go as far as you do and categorically deny things in the face of evidence because they would not occur in a system with perfectly rational actors acting with perfect information is madness. Better run businesses tend to success more but that doesn't mean that all the major competitors can't simultaneously make the same irrational error, or that a better business and a worse business can't co-exist and prosper, nor that the irrational error is always going to be the breaking point that pushes a business under. Human nature cannot be disregarded and humans are not rational creatures.
I think you misunderstand, my explanation for the gap works prefectly well without perfect information. Perhaps it works better, if firms are unable to sufficiently discrimate between different women, they are forced to generalize. It is true that firms with a certain degree of mismanagement can survive for some time in an imperfect market, I will acknowledge that. But I still do not believe that irrational discrimation can account for anything other than a small portion of the wage gap.
|
On December 25 2013 03:18 WhiteDog wrote:Show nested quote +On December 25 2013 03:16 Crushinator wrote:On December 25 2013 02:33 corumjhaelen wrote:On December 25 2013 02:30 Crushinator wrote:On December 25 2013 02:27 corumjhaelen wrote:On December 25 2013 02:20 Crushinator wrote:On December 25 2013 02:17 farvacola wrote:On December 25 2013 02:14 Crushinator wrote:On December 25 2013 02:07 KwarK wrote:On December 25 2013 02:03 Crushinator wrote:
[quote]
Women did not have full access to the labour market in the past. Now they do, I don't understand why this is difficult to follow. So why was the irrational solution of denying women to the labour market prevailing back then when it was suboptimal? This is not a question of economics. Of course it is, you just can't satisfactorily answer it beyond simply repeating the dogma of the self-assured economist. How do you figure that? You ask your opponents evidence that we deviate from what you seem to think is the norm, but you fail yourself to provide any evidence that market efficiency is indeed the norm. Cancelling the derivative of a function is not a proof btw. Oh just because i believe that the rational actors assumption holds approximately true in the labour market does not mean that i think the market is efficient. I don't think information is perfect for example. My question is why do you believe that ? If you reject the notion of rational actors, you can throw out a huge portion of economic thought, and models that provide us with good results. It is a fundamental premise of economics. You would reduce economics to: people just do whatever. I am not prepared to throw out something as basic as rational actors unless faced with extraordinary evidence. But the fact that a model have good results have no relation at all with the fact that that model is "true" in reality or not... It's also a fundamental premise of economics : models are oversimplifications that are made for their prediction potential and not to actually describe what is. It's the basis of what Friedman called positive economics back in 1953, and it's the basis of modern economy too. Arrow & Debreu and afterwards Sonnenschein proved perfect and pure competition is wrong. So what do you think we still teach pure and perfect competition, equilibrium and everything else around that since we know it does not exist in reality ? There are countless exemple like that in economic theory.
I think rational actors is central to every model though, even models of imperfect markets. Hell, even Minsky-Kindleberger model of financial crises, which describes some sort of collective irrationality, needs individual actors to behave rationally.
You are ofcourse right that the most commonly taught models of perfect markets have zero basis in reality, and are just an excercise of a purely theoretical nature. I have no problem throwing out things like perfect mobility, information,, whatever, because even when those do not hold at all we can still use them to gain some limited insight.
|
On December 25 2013 03:33 Crushinator wrote:Show nested quote +On December 25 2013 03:18 WhiteDog wrote:On December 25 2013 03:16 Crushinator wrote:On December 25 2013 02:33 corumjhaelen wrote:On December 25 2013 02:30 Crushinator wrote:On December 25 2013 02:27 corumjhaelen wrote:On December 25 2013 02:20 Crushinator wrote:On December 25 2013 02:17 farvacola wrote:On December 25 2013 02:14 Crushinator wrote:On December 25 2013 02:07 KwarK wrote:
[quote]
So why was the irrational solution of denying women to the labour market prevailing back then when it was suboptimal? This is not a question of economics. Of course it is, you just can't satisfactorily answer it beyond simply repeating the dogma of the self-assured economist. How do you figure that? You ask your opponents evidence that we deviate from what you seem to think is the norm, but you fail yourself to provide any evidence that market efficiency is indeed the norm. Cancelling the derivative of a function is not a proof btw. Oh just because i believe that the rational actors assumption holds approximately true in the labour market does not mean that i think the market is efficient. I don't think information is perfect for example. My question is why do you believe that ? If you reject the notion of rational actors, you can throw out a huge portion of economic thought, and models that provide us with good results. It is a fundamental premise of economics. You would reduce economics to: people just do whatever. I am not prepared to throw out something as basic as rational actors unless faced with extraordinary evidence. But the fact that a model have good results have no relation at all with the fact that that model is "true" in reality or not... It's also a fundamental premise of economics : models are oversimplifications that are made for their prediction potential and not to actually describe what is. It's the basis of what Friedman called positive economics back in 1953, and it's the basis of modern economy too. Arrow & Debreu and afterwards Sonnenschein proved perfect and pure competition is wrong. So what do you think we still teach pure and perfect competition, equilibrium and everything else around that since we know it does not exist in reality ? There are countless exemple like that in economic theory. I think rational actors is central to every model though, even models of imperfect markets. Hell, even Minsky-Kindleberger model of financial crises, which describes some sort of collective irrationality, needs individual actors to behave rationally. You are ofcourse right that the most commonly taught models of perfect markets have zero basis in reality, and are just an excercise of a purely theoretical nature. I have no problem throwing out things like perfect mobility, information,, whatever, because even when those do not hold at all we can still use them to gain some limited insight.
You should do some sociology, you would see a shit ton of other kind of "model" for human behavior in which rational actors have no place 
Anyway I'm off, merry christmas you all.
|
On December 25 2013 01:45 KwarK wrote:
Your belief in rational human decision making in the face of humanity is incredibly irrational.
It's no more irrational than a disbelief in rational human decision making "in the face of humanity," geez Louise guys.
If we have to dumb down our own conception of human beings so much to "rational actors" or "irrational actors..." and humanity as rational actors is something you'll see usually confined to the area of personal economic decisions, not 'the invisible hand controls all facets of life and explains all human behaviors.' Always amazes me that people trying to discredit it give it far more power than it's own proponents do...
|
On December 25 2013 04:05 DeepElemBlues wrote:Show nested quote +On December 25 2013 01:45 KwarK wrote:
Your belief in rational human decision making in the face of humanity is incredibly irrational. It's no more irrational than a disbelief in rational human decision making "in the face of humanity," geez Louise guys.
Actually it's quite irrational to discount all the studies that have concluded that humans behave irrationally, because you "prefer" to believe otherwise.
|
On December 25 2013 04:11 Mercy13 wrote:Show nested quote +On December 25 2013 04:05 DeepElemBlues wrote:On December 25 2013 01:45 KwarK wrote:
Your belief in rational human decision making in the face of humanity is incredibly irrational. It's no more irrational than a disbelief in rational human decision making "in the face of humanity," geez Louise guys. Actually it's quite irrational to discount all the studies that have concluded that humans behave irrationally, because you "prefer" to believe otherwise.
It's quite irrational to try to read people's minds. You shouldn't need to run to the comforting arms of nanny scientist to tell you that men and women act rationally and irrationally, often in rapid succession, or can make long stretches of rational or irrational decisions. I am sorry that apparently the conversation is being conducted in absolutes, itself not very rational when trying to discuss the complexities of human nature and behavior. Using your brain instead of your ego would have avoided such an unfortunate statement on your part. Really, you divining what I "prefer" to believe based on a single sentence. Geez. Louise.
So how about you not embarrass yourself again and step away from the crystal ball. It's not doing anything for you. It doesn't let you read minds. The guy at the "Magick" store was lying. I quite frankly do not care one whit that "many studies" have concluded that humans behave irrationally, because I did not need "many studies" to tell me that. I doubt those studies concluded that humans are incapable of rational behavior or thought, yet here we are, arguing if humans are rational or irrational. Truly rational people would not have wars. Truly irrational people would not have advanced technology. Perhaps a study can explain this.
So go, run, back to your studies, they seem to be a less efficient but satisfactory replacement to you for your eyes. I hope they continue to be.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
