|
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. |
Utah County, which held off issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples at the beginning of the week, will now grant them to all couples, Utah County Clerk Bryan Thompson said in a statement Thursday.
"On Tuesday afternoon, December 24th, the 10th Circuit of Appeals denied the motion to stay the ruling by Judge Robert Shelby that Utah’s same sex marriage ban is unconstitutional," Thompson said. "Based upon that motion and upon receipt of the further clarifications I was seeking; the Utah County Clerk’s Office will issue marriage licenses to all eligible applicants."
Thompson on Monday refused to issue licenses to same-sex couples before receiving legal clarification from the county attorney, even after a federal judge denied Utah's request to hold of on issuing same-sex marriage licenses while the state appeals the court's ruling.
On Tuesday, Utah Attorney General Sean Reyes ordered counties that resisted issuing licenses to same-sex couples to do so, and he expected all counties to be granting licenses to all couples by Thursday.
Source
|
yeah poor poor postWar americans, just couldn't buy enough things. Tragic really
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
wage gap studies btw can fail at the door because of too simple an identification of sexism, ie excluding its structural results. women choice of college major for example is arguably a product of this and thus contain rather than confound some effect of social sexism. similar with race stidies eg black kids are falling behind not because they are black but because poor. but in the real world and its history these variables are not independent
|
that's what I try to mean when I say that the subject is always-already interpellated but maybe this is too 'philosophical' for mixed company
it's the liberal fantasy of the autonomous self-constituted subject which leads people like crushinator into their delusions of a priori knowledge of the social order
|
On December 27 2013 02:33 oneofthem wrote:
wage gap studies btw can fail at the door because of too simple an identification of sexism, ie excluding its structural results. women choice of college major for example is arguably a product of this and thus contain rather than confound some effect of social sexism. similar with race stidies eg black kids are falling behind not because they are black but because poor. but in the real world and its history these variables are not independent
All scientific studies will attempt to take those things into account, and see if gender or race has additional explanatory value. The problem lies in factors that are not so easily observed.
|
On December 27 2013 02:40 sam!zdat wrote:
that's what I try to mean when I say that the subject is always-already interpellated but maybe this is too 'philosophical' for mixed company
it's the liberal fantasy of the autonomous self-constituted subject which leads people like crushinator into their delusions of a priori knowledge of the social order
I claim no a priori knowledge of the social order, but simply that the claim that a wage gap as large as 5% can be explained by irrational discrimination seem implausible to me, based on economic theory. I know a great philosopher like yourself places little weight on economic theory, but do try not to exaggerate the extent of my delusions.
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
which essentially makes the subject a close empirical one lol a priori bro
from rxperience there is an assumption that males are more competitive and more ready to seek alternative opportunities thus that leverage is anticipated in the wage pricing
|
On December 27 2013 01:40 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On December 27 2013 01:09 Crushinator wrote:On December 27 2013 00:25 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On December 26 2013 17:19 aksfjh wrote:On December 26 2013 14:50 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On December 26 2013 14:36 Nyxisto wrote:On December 26 2013 14:25 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On December 26 2013 13:48 Nyxisto wrote:On December 26 2013 13:14 Danglars wrote:
That is to say, government power, influence, and size has been trending up almost everywhere. With so much success, it must be a little irking to see it still being resisted by a significant portion of Americans. Short of total surrender and kowtow, I don't see a lot of reconciliation for the future. As you are so keen on stressing Americas history, do you care if we take a look at Americas tax rates in the past? You know the good old days, where governments basically didn't exist, but collected 90% of the top income? Firstly the government isn't the arch-enemy of the people, it is the people. And in the past, during which the US did really really well,government was in fact involved and pretty big, compared to today. Economic growth was awesome, wealth inequality was reasonable and, acceptable regulation existed. It was only later,from the 70's and 80's on, that politicians came to the conclusion that taxing people who are already richer than god didn't seem very appropriate any more and that deregulating everything is really awesome. Wealth inequality went through the roof and economic growth rates declined and are at an all time low now. It's true that America did really great, but at a time where taxation was exceptionally high and the government was quite heavily involved. Deregulation only really started during the Reagan and Thatcher era and hasn't accomplished anything besides a completely unfair and fucked up system. The old economy collapsed in the 60's and 70's. It's dead, and there's no going back. Sorry. The collapse of the Bretton - Woods system and the economy in the 60's and 70's had it's roots in Americas need to fund the vietnam war, recovery of Europe and Japan, negative trade balances and inflation. That has little to do with what's wrong with our system today. Taxing rich guys doesn't cost you one dollar, and putting reasonable regulations in place(for example in the healthcare sector, with the goal of aiming for a single payer system) would save the US an insane amount of money. I won't argue with reasonable tax and regulatory proposals. I will argue with nostalgia for the 60's and 70's. Those times really weren't that great. Were they "not great" for their economic performance, or for the social injustices of that time? Both. Though I think they were related at times. The US was doing very well economically, and brought about great social changes, in the 60s and the early 70s right up untill the oil crisis, no? Well what do you mean by "very well economically"? Inflation was already rising, the government was scrambling to maintain the monetary system (which ultimately failed), businesses were becoming uncompetitive, pollution was abysmal, and consumers were getting tired of being restricted in the goods and services they could buy. GDP growth may have looked alright, but the wheels were already falling off.
Besides the fact that businesses were pretty profitable at the end of the 60's. (all time high in gross profits) all the things you mentioned can be attributed to outside factors.
The crisis in the 70's coincided with the failure of the monetary system, which doesn't really have to do anything with structural problems inside the US economy(but rather with the war funding through expansive monetary policy), the oil crisis, and the stock - market crash in the mid 70's. Labor productivity and wealth were growing immensely during the post war era, well into the late 60's.(Also labor unions were at an all time high). So just from a structural point of view the US were doing pretty great.
It's true that Reaganomics worked for the US, but at the cost of inequality(through low wages and tax cuts for corporations), huge debt increase and deregulation. Substituting labor productivity(and an educated workforce) and structural reforms with low wage policies, is a very very stupid idea in the long run. As could be seen when the Reagan and Thatcher era was over and growth rates were falling again.
Edit: We basically did the same thing in the last 10 years here in Germany, and not only did the "Hartz reforms" screw over a majority of the population, but the "race to the bottom" is hurting our neighbour countries immensely because they're struggling to stay competitive.
|
On December 27 2013 02:48 Crushinator wrote:Show nested quote +On December 27 2013 02:40 sam!zdat wrote:
that's what I try to mean when I say that the subject is always-already interpellated but maybe this is too 'philosophical' for mixed company
it's the liberal fantasy of the autonomous self-constituted subject which leads people like crushinator into their delusions of a priori knowledge of the social order I claim no a priori knowledge of the social order, but simply that the claim that a wage gap as large as 5% can be explained by irrational discrimination seem implausible to me, based on economic theory. I know a great philosopher like yourself places little weight on economic theory, but do try not to exaggerate the extent of my delusions.
'i claim no a priori knowledge, but I have a priori reasons to believe X '
ok kid
|
On December 27 2013 03:04 sam!zdat wrote:Show nested quote +On December 27 2013 02:48 Crushinator wrote:On December 27 2013 02:40 sam!zdat wrote:
that's what I try to mean when I say that the subject is always-already interpellated but maybe this is too 'philosophical' for mixed company
it's the liberal fantasy of the autonomous self-constituted subject which leads people like crushinator into their delusions of a priori knowledge of the social order I claim no a priori knowledge of the social order, but simply that the claim that a wage gap as large as 5% can be explained by irrational discrimination seem implausible to me, based on economic theory. I know a great philosopher like yourself places little weight on economic theory, but do try not to exaggerate the extent of my delusions. 'i claim no a priori knowledge, but I have a priori reasons to believe X ' ok kid
Your assertion sepcifically was that I claim a priori knowledge of the social order. Which is untrue for me, unlike you btw, since you seem to believe in patriarchy, and when questioned about it simply tell me that I'm wrong because its obviously true. Talk about a priori....
|
On December 27 2013 02:22 sam!zdat wrote:
yeah poor poor postWar americans, just couldn't buy enough things. Tragic really
You can't just blame the Americans, sam. The rest of the world didn't buy enough things either.
|
On December 27 2013 02:08 Crushinator wrote:Show nested quote +On December 27 2013 01:40 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On December 27 2013 01:09 Crushinator wrote:On December 27 2013 00:25 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On December 26 2013 17:19 aksfjh wrote:On December 26 2013 14:50 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On December 26 2013 14:36 Nyxisto wrote:On December 26 2013 14:25 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On December 26 2013 13:48 Nyxisto wrote:On December 26 2013 13:14 Danglars wrote:
That is to say, government power, influence, and size has been trending up almost everywhere. With so much success, it must be a little irking to see it still being resisted by a significant portion of Americans. Short of total surrender and kowtow, I don't see a lot of reconciliation for the future. As you are so keen on stressing Americas history, do you care if we take a look at Americas tax rates in the past? You know the good old days, where governments basically didn't exist, but collected 90% of the top income? Firstly the government isn't the arch-enemy of the people, it is the people. And in the past, during which the US did really really well,government was in fact involved and pretty big, compared to today. Economic growth was awesome, wealth inequality was reasonable and, acceptable regulation existed. It was only later,from the 70's and 80's on, that politicians came to the conclusion that taxing people who are already richer than god didn't seem very appropriate any more and that deregulating everything is really awesome. Wealth inequality went through the roof and economic growth rates declined and are at an all time low now. It's true that America did really great, but at a time where taxation was exceptionally high and the government was quite heavily involved. Deregulation only really started during the Reagan and Thatcher era and hasn't accomplished anything besides a completely unfair and fucked up system. The old economy collapsed in the 60's and 70's. It's dead, and there's no going back. Sorry. The collapse of the Bretton - Woods system and the economy in the 60's and 70's had it's roots in Americas need to fund the vietnam war, recovery of Europe and Japan, negative trade balances and inflation. That has little to do with what's wrong with our system today. Taxing rich guys doesn't cost you one dollar, and putting reasonable regulations in place(for example in the healthcare sector, with the goal of aiming for a single payer system) would save the US an insane amount of money. I won't argue with reasonable tax and regulatory proposals. I will argue with nostalgia for the 60's and 70's. Those times really weren't that great. Were they "not great" for their economic performance, or for the social injustices of that time? Both. Though I think they were related at times. The US was doing very well economically, and brought about great social changes, in the 60s and the early 70s right up untill the oil crisis, no? Well what do you mean by "very well economically"? Inflation was already rising, the government was scrambling to maintain the monetary system (which ultimately failed), businesses were becoming uncompetitive, pollution was abysmal, and consumers were getting tired of being restricted in the goods and services they could buy. GDP growth may have looked alright, but the wheels were already falling off. This is interesting, do you know of a place where I can read more about this sort of interpretation? I'm particularly interested in your comments about businesses being uncompetitive and consumers being tired of restrictions. It seems quite different from my understanding of this crisis.
Sure, see: American Challenges: The Blue Model Breaks Down or Japan's Last Chance which compares current Japan to the old US.
A few things I'd like to point out:
It's pretty widely accepted (at least in the business world) that by the 70's many American businesses had grown very big and inefficient management structures that were overly costly and unresponsive to consumers. Many were oligopolies (big 3 automakers) and some were even monopolies (AT&T). People didn't have many choices and businesses could get away with a lot, for good or ill.
That helped spark the rise of consumer advocates like Ralph Nader and environmental protections like the EPA. People also grew tired of the raw deal that traditional banking offered consumers. Zero percent interest on demand deposits really sucks when inflation is high and people demanded alternatives like money market funds.
|
also whoever said that sexism was irrational from the point of view of power? It's completely 'rational'
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
denying sexism in general just seems oblivious. dont even need to go outside to see it, look at the internets
|
People who deny it Exists just never have it happen to them. Same with racism. People think it doesnt exist because it doesnt happen to them, when in reality they are the ones exacerbating the issue unknowingly
|
|
|
On December 27 2013 03:36 oneofthem wrote:
denying sexism in general just seems oblivious. dont even need to go outside to see it, look at the internets
To be clear, I acknowledge sexism and harmful gender stereotyping for both sexes. I know a fair amount about the subject, though adtmittedly less than some other posters. But I don't find this to be in conflict with my expectation that irrational sexism can have only a very limited impact on wages, and i reject the feminist take on patriarchy as a useful concept.
|
On December 27 2013 02:58 Nyxisto wrote:Show nested quote +On December 27 2013 01:40 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On December 27 2013 01:09 Crushinator wrote:On December 27 2013 00:25 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On December 26 2013 17:19 aksfjh wrote:On December 26 2013 14:50 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On December 26 2013 14:36 Nyxisto wrote:On December 26 2013 14:25 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On December 26 2013 13:48 Nyxisto wrote:On December 26 2013 13:14 Danglars wrote:
That is to say, government power, influence, and size has been trending up almost everywhere. With so much success, it must be a little irking to see it still being resisted by a significant portion of Americans. Short of total surrender and kowtow, I don't see a lot of reconciliation for the future. As you are so keen on stressing Americas history, do you care if we take a look at Americas tax rates in the past? You know the good old days, where governments basically didn't exist, but collected 90% of the top income? Firstly the government isn't the arch-enemy of the people, it is the people. And in the past, during which the US did really really well,government was in fact involved and pretty big, compared to today. Economic growth was awesome, wealth inequality was reasonable and, acceptable regulation existed. It was only later,from the 70's and 80's on, that politicians came to the conclusion that taxing people who are already richer than god didn't seem very appropriate any more and that deregulating everything is really awesome. Wealth inequality went through the roof and economic growth rates declined and are at an all time low now. It's true that America did really great, but at a time where taxation was exceptionally high and the government was quite heavily involved. Deregulation only really started during the Reagan and Thatcher era and hasn't accomplished anything besides a completely unfair and fucked up system. The old economy collapsed in the 60's and 70's. It's dead, and there's no going back. Sorry. The collapse of the Bretton - Woods system and the economy in the 60's and 70's had it's roots in Americas need to fund the vietnam war, recovery of Europe and Japan, negative trade balances and inflation. That has little to do with what's wrong with our system today. Taxing rich guys doesn't cost you one dollar, and putting reasonable regulations in place(for example in the healthcare sector, with the goal of aiming for a single payer system) would save the US an insane amount of money. I won't argue with reasonable tax and regulatory proposals. I will argue with nostalgia for the 60's and 70's. Those times really weren't that great. Were they "not great" for their economic performance, or for the social injustices of that time? Both. Though I think they were related at times. The US was doing very well economically, and brought about great social changes, in the 60s and the early 70s right up untill the oil crisis, no? Well what do you mean by "very well economically"? Inflation was already rising, the government was scrambling to maintain the monetary system (which ultimately failed), businesses were becoming uncompetitive, pollution was abysmal, and consumers were getting tired of being restricted in the goods and services they could buy. GDP growth may have looked alright, but the wheels were already falling off. Besides the fact that businesses were pretty profitable at the end of the 60's. (all time high in gross profits) all the things you mentioned can be attributed to outside factors. The crisis in the 70's coincided with the failure of the monetary system, which doesn't really have to do anything with structural problems inside the US economy(but rather with the war funding through expansive monetary policy), the oil crisis, and the stock - market crash in the mid 70's. Labor productivity and wealth were growing immensely during the post war era, well into the late 60's.(Also labor unions were at an all time high). So just from a structural point of view the US were doing pretty great. It's true that Reaganomics worked for the US, but at the cost of inequality(through low wages and tax cuts for corporations), huge debt increase and deregulation. Substituting labor productivity(and an educated workforce) and structural reforms with low wage policies, is a very very stupid idea in the long run. As could be seen when the Reagan and Thatcher era was over and growth rates were falling again. Edit: We basically did the same thing in the last 10 years here in Germany, and not only did the "Hartz reforms" screw over a majority of the population, but the "race to the bottom" is hurting our neighbour countries immensely because they're struggling to stay competitive.
Why would all time high gross profits matter? Gross profits aren't necessarily an important decision point.
I'm not sure why outside vs inside matters since they both influence each other. US firms could be lazy because they didn't have many domestic or international competitors. Monetary crisis were present in the 60's as well and were repeatedly fought until finally throwing in the towel in the 70's.
I think it's a gross mis-characterization to call Reagan reforms low wages instead of structural reforms, productivity and education. Many of the reforms were completely about productivity and structural reforms. You can absolutely throw in criticisms like higher inequality and greater economic uncertainty for workers, but trying to characterize as all bad isn't correct.
Productivity in the US shifted into a lower gear in the 70's - before Reagan - and then perked up briefly in the late 90's early 2000's. Comparing internationally, it's done quite well.
To your edit - was 12% unemployment really not a problem for Germany?
|
There's more to it than just skin color. Economics, history, culture and language play roles as well.
IS a cool map though 
|
8 mile is EXACTLY the part of town where you start seeing strip joints and liquor stores every other block. (to be fair their are liquor stores pretty much everywhere but all of the strip clubs are in that area.)
That area is right in between a middle class neighborhood and a very wealthy neighborhood to the north, both of which are super white. Blacks are pretty much sandwiched between whites all over the city except mayyyyybe downtown.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT![[image loading]](http://img.ibtimes.com/www/data/images/full/2012/09/17/305572.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://www.wired.com/design/wp-content/uploads/2013/08/DETROITINLINE.jpg)
