|
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 January 21 2014 03:38 aksfjh wrote:Show nested quote +On January 21 2014 03:04 WhiteDog wrote:I don't really think it will have any negative impact on employment. People who actually still tries to put a simple offer and demand market model on labor just don't understand the matter at hand today. Since 1990 we saw a global split between productivity and wage increase. Because of that (and many other things), many people think wages are lower than their equilibrium level - from this point of view, a higher minimum wage would not ends up in a higher unemployment (in fact that standard model would actually consider that it will end up in a higher employment... because more people will go out of their inactivity to work). My problem is not really with the direct impact of the increase rather than in the virtuous circle it is supposed to create. Economists think that, because the economy is in a state with a global under employment of ressources (this was heavily discussed a year ago, with the idea of secular stagnation coming back from 1930's keynesianism) an increase in minimum wage will push firms to spend money despite their pessimism on the state of the economy, pushing the economy in a virtuous circle. This is why you see some people who consider that the economy will gain I don't know how many billion dollars after the increase in the minimum wage, and even the employment would benefit. In this I don't believe. On January 21 2014 00:23 aksfjh wrote:On January 20 2014 20:39 WhiteDog wrote:On January 20 2014 19:57 Danglars wrote:Up the price of labor, reduce the purchase of labor. Really sucks for the skilless entry-level worker, particularly youth. Those countries with the highest minimum wages+mandatory benefits tend to have youth unemployment rates in that 20%+ range. It costs the young valuable work experience and pay. Economist Thomas Sowell chronicles also its hurtful impact on minorities in his columns through the years. That is what first year students learn in class. Then when they grow up a little, they learn that markets behave differently in regards to their structure, and that the labor market is not a market that behave like a pure and perfect market - they read all the work on the idea that labor market might be a monopsone. They also can make a link between one market and the specific situation the world is in, with a potential output way higher than its real level, making them touch the idea that we might be in an equilibrium of under employment. I guess at this point most students kinda see that the banana market is not exactly the same as the labor market. According to economic theory, increasing minimum wage is absolutly a good idea when the minimum wage is too low, as the particular market structure (monopsone maybe), or the specific historical context (crisis), does not permit the market to reach its equilibrium by itself (to say it simply, a normal labor market will not reach a "good" wage by itself because it is not a perfect market and because the anticipations of agents on the future are so bad that they keep everything lower than it could be). My problem is that even this logic is, in my point of view flawed. This is modern economic theory, the same theory that neglect society and human behavior. When you increase minimum wage in this situation, you increase short term global consumption and profit within a society. Economists believe that this excess profit will give birth to more jobs and a virtuous circle, but I see no reason for it not to just ends up in more profit, more inequality, and no or almost no job created. There is an underlying problem of redistribution of the wealth created that is never explicitly discussed because it is too political. This is where it's important to look at the current economic environment to determine what will happen. There is a possibility that the extra spending capacity will just create more profit that will not go back into production (aka "creating more jobs"). However, it's probably best to think that the 2nd order increased purchasing power of this low class will have a combination of 3 effects on the supply side (with the assumption that demand will outstrip supply): 1) Inflation will occur. Suppliers will not invest in further infrastructure or workers to meet demand, and instead will simply raise prices to take advantage of the surge in demand. 2) Worker efficiency will improve. This will basically "justify" the mandatory increase in the wage floor. More products will be bought and sold, profit margins will go almost no where, and no jobs will be lost/found. (Highly unlikely scenario) 3) Producers will look to produce more to capitalize on the increased demand. This will require hiring more workers and/or investing in improvements to production. In a "normal" economy (whatever that phrase even means anymore), the first is likely to occur. More labor is harder to come by, so the increased demand just raises prices until it becomes more lucrative to hire another worker than increase prices. However, labor is highly competitive right now, with unemployment so very high. This means the third is most likely to occur. Of course, this isn't going to happen unilaterally, with industries following the 3 to different degrees. I personally think 1 will appear. 2 is, especially today, not really in question since productivity and wage are not linked since 20 years (the increase in minimum wage might resolve that). In fact, I think the theorical ground that made you write 2 is absolutly wrong in today's world, but I guess that is another matter. My problem is with 3. There is a high chance that the producers will rather push the people who are still working to work more in order to increase production (something that would increase labor productivity). This will permit the producers to prevent any redistribution of the newly created wealth (they will push the few that work to work more rather than increasing employment). I mean, it's not a purely economic question, it's the state of the business and the state of our society today that inequality is rising more and more. With an increase in minimum wage, there are no safe economic mecanism that can makes us sure that the wealth created by an increase in minimum wage will actually be distributed in the entire economy. What if all wealth just ends up, again, in the hands of a few ? So far, the evidence as I see it (and many others as well) points away from scenario 1. With interest rates across much of the "Western World" near 0, we have yet to see inflation take hold. Even with some pretty ridiculous policies in the US, inflation is still remaining stubbornly low, which points to slack in the demand side of the economy. Thus, anything that increases demand (like higher incomes for those willing to spend their money) will likely have much greater effect than in a traditional equilibrium economy. Also, inflation is usually seen as a good thing in this scenario, and we don't normally find ourselves in a position where both unemployment is high along with inflation. I guess I should have been clearer with my use of "efficiency" in scenario 2, where in which employers will demand more out of their workers, whether that be in efficiency or overall hours. Either way, it's an employment neutral scenario, but a GDP positive one (and probably anti-poverty positive as well). And certainly, it's not a PURELY economic question, but I'm starting to see more and more economics at play in scenarios that were classically thought of as largely independent of economics. I personally think regional economic and tax policy has played a substantial role in wealth accumulation in a global elite class, and we can see this in the regional differences of inequality.
Yeah you are right about inflation, should have been clearer : we will most likely see an increase in the price of some goods heavy on under qualified labor, like fast food services, market, etc. But it will not touch most of the goods.
|
Almost half of the world's wealth is owned by just 1% of the world's population, according to a report published just days before the start of the World Economic Forum's annual meeting, where the topic of rapidly increasing income disparities will be a major focus.
In its study titled "Working for the Few," the British-founded development charity Oxfam concludes that the $110 trillion wealth of the 1% richest people on the planet is some 65 times the total wealth of those floundering at the "bottom half" of the world's population.
Further, this poorer "bottom half" now has about the same amount of money as the richest 85 people in the world, and the wealthiest grew their share of bounty in 24 out of 26 countries surveyed between 1980 and 2012, the study says. The research was compiled using data from Credit Suisse's World Wealth report and the Forbes' billionaires list.
"In the last 30 thirty years seven out of 10 people have been living in countries where economic inequality has increased," Nick Galasso, one of the co-authors of the study, told USA TODAY. "This is a trend that has been unfolding globally for the last two or three decades. What we've not seen is any political will toward curbing it."
President Obama has identified economic equality as one of the defining issues of our time and in a speech in December he said that increasing inequality "challenges the very essence of who we are as a people." In the U.S., the financially privileged — the wealthiest 1% — have "captured 95% of post-financial crisis growth since 2009, while the bottom 90% became poorer," the Oxfam report notes.
Oxfam: Richest 1% own nearly half of world's wealth
|
On January 21 2014 03:44 farvacola wrote:Show nested quote +Almost half of the world's wealth is owned by just 1% of the world's population, according to a report published just days before the start of the World Economic Forum's annual meeting, where the topic of rapidly increasing income disparities will be a major focus.
In its study titled "Working for the Few," the British-founded development charity Oxfam concludes that the $110 trillion wealth of the 1% richest people on the planet is some 65 times the total wealth of those floundering at the "bottom half" of the world's population.
Further, this poorer "bottom half" now has about the same amount of money as the richest 85 people in the world, and the wealthiest grew their share of bounty in 24 out of 26 countries surveyed between 1980 and 2012, the study says. The research was compiled using data from Credit Suisse's World Wealth report and the Forbes' billionaires list.
"In the last 30 thirty years seven out of 10 people have been living in countries where economic inequality has increased," Nick Galasso, one of the co-authors of the study, told USA TODAY. "This is a trend that has been unfolding globally for the last two or three decades. What we've not seen is any political will toward curbing it."
President Obama has identified economic equality as one of the defining issues of our time and in a speech in December he said that increasing inequality "challenges the very essence of who we are as a people." In the U.S., the financially privileged — the wealthiest 1% — have "captured 95% of post-financial crisis growth since 2009, while the bottom 90% became poorer," the Oxfam report notes. Oxfam: Richest 1% own nearly half of world's wealth
Not bad, 110 trillion of value has been unlocked, the world is a lot wealthier than I had thought.
|
On January 21 2014 03:43 WhiteDog wrote:Show nested quote +On January 21 2014 03:38 aksfjh wrote:On January 21 2014 03:04 WhiteDog wrote:I don't really think it will have any negative impact on employment. People who actually still tries to put a simple offer and demand market model on labor just don't understand the matter at hand today. Since 1990 we saw a global split between productivity and wage increase. Because of that (and many other things), many people think wages are lower than their equilibrium level - from this point of view, a higher minimum wage would not ends up in a higher unemployment (in fact that standard model would actually consider that it will end up in a higher employment... because more people will go out of their inactivity to work). My problem is not really with the direct impact of the increase rather than in the virtuous circle it is supposed to create. Economists think that, because the economy is in a state with a global under employment of ressources (this was heavily discussed a year ago, with the idea of secular stagnation coming back from 1930's keynesianism) an increase in minimum wage will push firms to spend money despite their pessimism on the state of the economy, pushing the economy in a virtuous circle. This is why you see some people who consider that the economy will gain I don't know how many billion dollars after the increase in the minimum wage, and even the employment would benefit. In this I don't believe. On January 21 2014 00:23 aksfjh wrote:On January 20 2014 20:39 WhiteDog wrote:On January 20 2014 19:57 Danglars wrote:Up the price of labor, reduce the purchase of labor. Really sucks for the skilless entry-level worker, particularly youth. Those countries with the highest minimum wages+mandatory benefits tend to have youth unemployment rates in that 20%+ range. It costs the young valuable work experience and pay. Economist Thomas Sowell chronicles also its hurtful impact on minorities in his columns through the years. That is what first year students learn in class. Then when they grow up a little, they learn that markets behave differently in regards to their structure, and that the labor market is not a market that behave like a pure and perfect market - they read all the work on the idea that labor market might be a monopsone. They also can make a link between one market and the specific situation the world is in, with a potential output way higher than its real level, making them touch the idea that we might be in an equilibrium of under employment. I guess at this point most students kinda see that the banana market is not exactly the same as the labor market. According to economic theory, increasing minimum wage is absolutly a good idea when the minimum wage is too low, as the particular market structure (monopsone maybe), or the specific historical context (crisis), does not permit the market to reach its equilibrium by itself (to say it simply, a normal labor market will not reach a "good" wage by itself because it is not a perfect market and because the anticipations of agents on the future are so bad that they keep everything lower than it could be). My problem is that even this logic is, in my point of view flawed. This is modern economic theory, the same theory that neglect society and human behavior. When you increase minimum wage in this situation, you increase short term global consumption and profit within a society. Economists believe that this excess profit will give birth to more jobs and a virtuous circle, but I see no reason for it not to just ends up in more profit, more inequality, and no or almost no job created. There is an underlying problem of redistribution of the wealth created that is never explicitly discussed because it is too political. This is where it's important to look at the current economic environment to determine what will happen. There is a possibility that the extra spending capacity will just create more profit that will not go back into production (aka "creating more jobs"). However, it's probably best to think that the 2nd order increased purchasing power of this low class will have a combination of 3 effects on the supply side (with the assumption that demand will outstrip supply): 1) Inflation will occur. Suppliers will not invest in further infrastructure or workers to meet demand, and instead will simply raise prices to take advantage of the surge in demand. 2) Worker efficiency will improve. This will basically "justify" the mandatory increase in the wage floor. More products will be bought and sold, profit margins will go almost no where, and no jobs will be lost/found. (Highly unlikely scenario) 3) Producers will look to produce more to capitalize on the increased demand. This will require hiring more workers and/or investing in improvements to production. In a "normal" economy (whatever that phrase even means anymore), the first is likely to occur. More labor is harder to come by, so the increased demand just raises prices until it becomes more lucrative to hire another worker than increase prices. However, labor is highly competitive right now, with unemployment so very high. This means the third is most likely to occur. Of course, this isn't going to happen unilaterally, with industries following the 3 to different degrees. I personally think 1 will appear. 2 is, especially today, not really in question since productivity and wage are not linked since 20 years (the increase in minimum wage might resolve that). In fact, I think the theorical ground that made you write 2 is absolutly wrong in today's world, but I guess that is another matter. My problem is with 3. There is a high chance that the producers will rather push the people who are still working to work more in order to increase production (something that would increase labor productivity). This will permit the producers to prevent any redistribution of the newly created wealth (they will push the few that work to work more rather than increasing employment). I mean, it's not a purely economic question, it's the state of the business and the state of our society today that inequality is rising more and more. With an increase in minimum wage, there are no safe economic mecanism that can makes us sure that the wealth created by an increase in minimum wage will actually be distributed in the entire economy. What if all wealth just ends up, again, in the hands of a few ? So far, the evidence as I see it (and many others as well) points away from scenario 1. With interest rates across much of the "Western World" near 0, we have yet to see inflation take hold. Even with some pretty ridiculous policies in the US, inflation is still remaining stubbornly low, which points to slack in the demand side of the economy. Thus, anything that increases demand (like higher incomes for those willing to spend their money) will likely have much greater effect than in a traditional equilibrium economy. Also, inflation is usually seen as a good thing in this scenario, and we don't normally find ourselves in a position where both unemployment is high along with inflation. I guess I should have been clearer with my use of "efficiency" in scenario 2, where in which employers will demand more out of their workers, whether that be in efficiency or overall hours. Either way, it's an employment neutral scenario, but a GDP positive one (and probably anti-poverty positive as well). And certainly, it's not a PURELY economic question, but I'm starting to see more and more economics at play in scenarios that were classically thought of as largely independent of economics. I personally think regional economic and tax policy has played a substantial role in wealth accumulation in a global elite class, and we can see this in the regional differences of inequality. Yeah you are right about inflation, should have been clearer : we will most likely see an increase in the price of some goods heavy on under qualified labor, like fast food services, market, etc. But it will not touch most of the goods.
This is quite possible, but at the same time, may have rippling effects in the positive for other sectors. For example, it has long been claimed that eating healthy is just too costly for the poor due to the increased time and cost factor (which is debatable). Enabling them to spend less time working or being rewarded more for their work could cause increased demand in healthier food products, especially if the cost of fast food also rises with those wages. As long as that increased food cost doesn't eat up their entire pay gains, it's a net benefit to the economy. Even if it did eat up their entire pay gains, the possibility that they would rely less heavily on fast food could have health benefits that improve our economy on the health side.
Although, I did miss another point that should be considered for the US:
4) The increased wages simply reduce reliance on direct transfer government anti-poverty programs. This would only be government budget positive really, and would likely only have political consequences.
|
I don't get why people keep pushing national minimum wages so hard when minimum wages should clearly be done at a state/local level based on the cost of living in that area; as different areas have very different costs of living.
|
On January 21 2014 03:52 Wolfstan wrote:Show nested quote +On January 21 2014 03:44 farvacola wrote:Almost half of the world's wealth is owned by just 1% of the world's population, according to a report published just days before the start of the World Economic Forum's annual meeting, where the topic of rapidly increasing income disparities will be a major focus.
In its study titled "Working for the Few," the British-founded development charity Oxfam concludes that the $110 trillion wealth of the 1% richest people on the planet is some 65 times the total wealth of those floundering at the "bottom half" of the world's population.
Further, this poorer "bottom half" now has about the same amount of money as the richest 85 people in the world, and the wealthiest grew their share of bounty in 24 out of 26 countries surveyed between 1980 and 2012, the study says. The research was compiled using data from Credit Suisse's World Wealth report and the Forbes' billionaires list.
"In the last 30 thirty years seven out of 10 people have been living in countries where economic inequality has increased," Nick Galasso, one of the co-authors of the study, told USA TODAY. "This is a trend that has been unfolding globally for the last two or three decades. What we've not seen is any political will toward curbing it."
President Obama has identified economic equality as one of the defining issues of our time and in a speech in December he said that increasing inequality "challenges the very essence of who we are as a people." In the U.S., the financially privileged — the wealthiest 1% — have "captured 95% of post-financial crisis growth since 2009, while the bottom 90% became poorer," the Oxfam report notes. Oxfam: Richest 1% own nearly half of world's wealth Not bad, 110 trillion of value has been unlocked, the world is a lot wealthier than I had thought.
How does 1% of people owning half the world's wealth make the entire world wealthier?
|
A higher minimum wage is probably best for a lot of things. It'l shake things up but I guess thats what the economy might need at the moment. Its kinda hard to argue against adjusting something like that for inflation over the years I just wish it came when obama was in a better position politically.
Saying you wouldn't let your son play football as the super bowl comes up and talking about fighting income inequality after you just got back from a vacation off of the taxpayers dime are not good moves I don't care who you are.
|
On January 21 2014 04:13 zlefin wrote:
I don't get why people keep pushing national minimum wages so hard when minimum wages should clearly be done at a state/local level based on the cost of living in that area; as different areas have very different costs of living.
Because that's clearly a race to the bottom scenario where employers can move their job sites into the next town or county. That should be really glaringly obvious.
Who in their right mind would let their son play football?
|
Former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin (R) celebrated Martin Luther King Day by urging President Barack Obama to honor the civil rights leader's legacy by not "playing the race card."
The former vice presidential candidate took to her Facebook page to mark the holiday, quoting King's historic "I Have A Dream" speech.
She followed the quote with a message of her own to Obama.
"Mr. President, in honor of Martin Luther King, Jr. and all who commit to ending any racial divide, no more playing the race card," she wrote.
Source
|
On January 21 2014 05:08 IgnE wrote:Show nested quote +On January 21 2014 04:13 zlefin wrote:
I don't get why people keep pushing national minimum wages so hard when minimum wages should clearly be done at a state/local level based on the cost of living in that area; as different areas have very different costs of living. Because that's clearly a race to the bottom scenario where employers can move their job sites into the next town or county. That should be really glaringly obvious.
Is that a problem? If they move to the next town the worker gets the same COL adjusted wage.
|
On January 21 2014 06:01 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On January 21 2014 05:08 IgnE wrote:On January 21 2014 04:13 zlefin wrote:
I don't get why people keep pushing national minimum wages so hard when minimum wages should clearly be done at a state/local level based on the cost of living in that area; as different areas have very different costs of living. Because that's clearly a race to the bottom scenario where employers can move their job sites into the next town or county. That should be really glaringly obvious. Is that a problem? If they move to the next town the worker gets the same COL adjusted wage.
If the adjusting is left up to state and local governments, it won't be the same CoL adjusted wage.
|
On January 21 2014 06:31 Mindcrime wrote:Show nested quote +On January 21 2014 06:01 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On January 21 2014 05:08 IgnE wrote:On January 21 2014 04:13 zlefin wrote:
I don't get why people keep pushing national minimum wages so hard when minimum wages should clearly be done at a state/local level based on the cost of living in that area; as different areas have very different costs of living. Because that's clearly a race to the bottom scenario where employers can move their job sites into the next town or county. That should be really glaringly obvious. Is that a problem? If they move to the next town the worker gets the same COL adjusted wage. If the adjusting is left up to state and local governments, it won't be the same CoL adjusted wage.
Even if they're basing their adjusting on cost of living?
|
On January 21 2014 06:01 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On January 21 2014 05:08 IgnE wrote:On January 21 2014 04:13 zlefin wrote:
I don't get why people keep pushing national minimum wages so hard when minimum wages should clearly be done at a state/local level based on the cost of living in that area; as different areas have very different costs of living. Because that's clearly a race to the bottom scenario where employers can move their job sites into the next town or county. That should be really glaringly obvious. Is that a problem? If they move to the next town the worker gets the same COL adjusted wage.
Is that real question? I can't tell whether you are always trolling or not. I'm not disputing that costs of living vary. I'm pointing out that it's a collective action problem to raise the minimum wage according to COL while relying on various and sundry local governments to do it. What municipality is going to raise the minimum wage, foregoing tax revenue and development if it's neighbor will not?
|
On January 21 2014 06:46 IgnE wrote:Show nested quote +On January 21 2014 06:01 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On January 21 2014 05:08 IgnE wrote:On January 21 2014 04:13 zlefin wrote:
I don't get why people keep pushing national minimum wages so hard when minimum wages should clearly be done at a state/local level based on the cost of living in that area; as different areas have very different costs of living. Because that's clearly a race to the bottom scenario where employers can move their job sites into the next town or county. That should be really glaringly obvious. Is that a problem? If they move to the next town the worker gets the same COL adjusted wage. Is that real question? I can't tell whether you are always trolling or not. I'm not disputing that costs of living vary. I'm pointing out that it's a collective action problem to raise the minimum wage according to COL while relying on various and sundry local governments to do it. What municipality is going to raise the minimum wage, foregoing tax revenue and development if it's neighbor will not?
In event that that happens, state and federal minimum wages provide a floor. I don't think many municipal tax bases are overly affected by the minimum wage anyways.
|
On January 21 2014 07:15 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On January 21 2014 06:46 IgnE wrote:On January 21 2014 06:01 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On January 21 2014 05:08 IgnE wrote:On January 21 2014 04:13 zlefin wrote:
I don't get why people keep pushing national minimum wages so hard when minimum wages should clearly be done at a state/local level based on the cost of living in that area; as different areas have very different costs of living. Because that's clearly a race to the bottom scenario where employers can move their job sites into the next town or county. That should be really glaringly obvious. Is that a problem? If they move to the next town the worker gets the same COL adjusted wage. Is that real question? I can't tell whether you are always trolling or not. I'm not disputing that costs of living vary. I'm pointing out that it's a collective action problem to raise the minimum wage according to COL while relying on various and sundry local governments to do it. What municipality is going to raise the minimum wage, foregoing tax revenue and development if it's neighbor will not? In event that that happens, state and federal minimum wages provide a floor. I don't think many municipal tax bases are overly affected by the minimum wage anyways.
But we are discussing a raise in the minimum wage jonny . . . We are talking about whether the floor should be raised and why the federal government would have to do it rather than letting local government decide the floor.
|
On January 21 2014 07:36 IgnE wrote:Show nested quote +On January 21 2014 07:15 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On January 21 2014 06:46 IgnE wrote:On January 21 2014 06:01 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On January 21 2014 05:08 IgnE wrote:On January 21 2014 04:13 zlefin wrote:
I don't get why people keep pushing national minimum wages so hard when minimum wages should clearly be done at a state/local level based on the cost of living in that area; as different areas have very different costs of living. Because that's clearly a race to the bottom scenario where employers can move their job sites into the next town or county. That should be really glaringly obvious. Is that a problem? If they move to the next town the worker gets the same COL adjusted wage. Is that real question? I can't tell whether you are always trolling or not. I'm not disputing that costs of living vary. I'm pointing out that it's a collective action problem to raise the minimum wage according to COL while relying on various and sundry local governments to do it. What municipality is going to raise the minimum wage, foregoing tax revenue and development if it's neighbor will not? In event that that happens, state and federal minimum wages provide a floor. I don't think many municipal tax bases are overly affected by the minimum wage anyways. But we are discussing a raise in the minimum wage jonny . . . We are talking about whether the floor should be raised and why the federal government would have to do it rather than letting local government decide the floor.
Well why would the federal government *have* to do it when state and local governments already set minimum wages higher than the federal level? Because some won't? Than let's have what we have now - a low-ball federal level with room for states and municipalities to mandate higher levels.
|
Alright, the thread has gotten boring, and I need some help understanding some LGBT issues and perspective. For those who are unaware, Grantland (www.grantland.com, a subsidiary of ESPN) published a story concerning a potentially revolutionary putter and its inventor. It turns out that the inventor was transgender, and this issue and the circumstances surrounding the lie that the inventor had woven around herself to hide her identity figure prominently in the story. I saw the article, but didn't read it until I saw Bill Simmons' (Grantland's editor) apology letter today. Grantland also posted a critique from a transgender writer at ESPN.
I've read the critique a few times now, and I am not sure that I accept it or even fully understand it. My initial impressions still hold: "so what?" and "that's some dedicated reporting and good journalistic work." I'm sure that at least some of you are horrified by this, so please enlighten me.
NOTE TO THE MODS: I posted this here instead of in a blog or separate thread because there are a lot of posters in this thread that I am interested in hearing from. Also, this is a rather prominent political issue in the US. If you want to move it, feel free.
|
On January 21 2014 08:14 xDaunt wrote:Alright, the thread has gotten boring, and I need some help understanding some LGBT issues and perspective. For those who are unaware, Grantland (www.grantland.com, a subsidiary of ESPN) published a story concerning a potentially revolutionary putter and its inventor. It turns out that the inventor was transgender, and this issue and the circumstances surrounding the lie that the inventor had woven around herself to hide her identity figure prominently in the story. I saw the article, but didn't read it until I saw Bill Simmons' (Grantland's editor) apology letter today. Grantland also posted a critique from a transgender writer at ESPN. I've read the critique a few times now, and I am not sure that I accept it or even fully understand it. My initial impressions still hold: "so what?" and "that's some dedicated reporting and good journalistic work." I'm sure that at least some of you are horrified by this, so please enlighten me. NOTE TO THE MODS: I posted this here instead of in a blog or separate thread because there are a lot of posters in this thread that I am interested in hearing from. Also, this is a rather prominent political issue in the US. If you want to move it, feel free.
Just read the first part, it's quite late at night. But this is pretty sad. I don't really understand why this "journalist" of sort considered that it was a necessity to check Dr. V's background considering it was all about a golf club...
|
So a crazy conperson did a lot of lying, and their lying was exposed by someone. I fail to see a serious problem. The critique does not impress me; she was not mistreated or treated differently than any other famous person would be because of her status.
|
On January 21 2014 08:52 WhiteDog wrote:Show nested quote +On January 21 2014 08:14 xDaunt wrote:Alright, the thread has gotten boring, and I need some help understanding some LGBT issues and perspective. For those who are unaware, Grantland (www.grantland.com, a subsidiary of ESPN) published a story concerning a potentially revolutionary putter and its inventor. It turns out that the inventor was transgender, and this issue and the circumstances surrounding the lie that the inventor had woven around herself to hide her identity figure prominently in the story. I saw the article, but didn't read it until I saw Bill Simmons' (Grantland's editor) apology letter today. Grantland also posted a critique from a transgender writer at ESPN. I've read the critique a few times now, and I am not sure that I accept it or even fully understand it. My initial impressions still hold: "so what?" and "that's some dedicated reporting and good journalistic work." I'm sure that at least some of you are horrified by this, so please enlighten me. NOTE TO THE MODS: I posted this here instead of in a blog or separate thread because there are a lot of posters in this thread that I am interested in hearing from. Also, this is a rather prominent political issue in the US. If you want to move it, feel free. Just read the first part, it's quite late at night. But this is pretty sad. I don't really understand why this "journalist" of sort considered that it was a necessity to check Dr. V's background considering it was all about a golf club...
Some amount of background checking was warranted. Dr. V claimed that the science behind her putter was superior to the competition and that her science should be believed because of her credentials - which didn't check out.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
