|
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 July 20 2017 21:41 PoulsenB wrote:Show nested quote +On July 20 2017 21:29 Kickboxer wrote:
One reason men are paid more is that the top end of the professional range for most of the highest paid occupations, meaning working 10 hours a day 6 days a week in banking, law, stock exchange, surgery, management, gambling, programing etc. is almost exclusively occupied by men - since men are, in general, the only ones crazy enough to live like that.
It's not a knock on women, the question is rather why anyone would be willing to sacrifice their complete intimate life for career and status. When it comes to these kinds of humans, the ration between men and women is totally broken and doesn't seem to be changing. Likely connected to motherhood on the one hand and testosterone on the other.
Another reason is men take all the dangerous occupations, and all those that require peak physical performance. Many are well compensated. For example, male sportsmen earn an extra zero on their contract since they bring in ten times as many viewers. Which only makes sense.
How to address these? The wage gap relates to situations where a woman earns less than a man on the same position (e.g. two employees in the same company doing the same job, but a woman earns less than a man). Gender ratio disproportions in employment for different occupations are another thing altogether.
Which is a meaningless definition. It does not take into account experience, productivity, wage negotiation, etc. Take an area where there are a lot of women for instance - healthcare. A RN who has 8 years of experience will be getting paid more than a RN who just graduated, yet, they're doing the same job. You call this (assume different genders for sake of argument) "wage discrimination", I call it sanity. Besides, if you look at under 40 working population, females make slightly more than their male counterparts. Why on earth this "wage discrimination" non-sense is still toted around like it's fact is beyond me.
|
On July 20 2017 12:34 mozoku wrote:Show nested quote +On July 20 2017 11:30 TheTenthDoc wrote:Quite a few analyses do look within specific professions and still find wage gaps. The 70 cent figure usually doesn't pop up once that's accounted for, but it's not rare to see 0.8-0.9 numbers, and as far as I know I've never seen a study where the gap disappeared. Nursing is one of the big studied areas, I think. Here's a summary article. You'd be hard pressed to find any fields where women make more than men (and if there was truly no wage gap, you would find equally as many studies showing women make more than men as men making more than women). I don't doubt that you're correct (that there's a pay gap favoring males), but the bold part is actually not true. Academic journals don't publish negative results, and it's a point of serious criticism among researchers/scientists. If an academic does a study and find a result that doesn't find a significant effect (i.e. no significant pay gap), or an effect that confirms the status quo knowledge ("men make more than women"), then journals simply won't publish it. There's pretty big problems with the cycle this creates when it happens on a large scale: 1) Public gets interested in whether Assertion A on Topic X is true 2) Academics rush to study whether Assertion A on Topic X is true (due to how incentives are set up in academia). Let's say 1000 people study it. 3) Even if you assume researchers are playing it straight so you take p-values at their nominal level (a very bad assumption, btw), and you assume zero effect, you expect 50 of those 1000 studies (at the standard p < 0.05 p-value threshold that journals use) to produce positive results of Assertion A. 4) Journals only publish positive results (i.e. the 50 instead of the 950) of Assertion A. 5) The media reports that Assertion A is confirmed by academic research. If you look at the input and output of the system, what's happening is that public interest in a controversial claim literally produces research to support the controversial claim because of how the current academic process works. Of course, publications produced this way don't hold up during replication attempts. Hence why we have a replication crisis going on.
This actually isn't true at all. That isn't what people mean when they criticize journals for not publishing negative results.
Negative results are if someone has an interesting hypothesis, so lets say "women get paid less than men". They do the research, and find that their hypothesis doesn't hold (or at least, the difference is statistically insignificant given the data available). They send it to a journal and the journal rejects the paper, because while the research is novel, the reviewers don't think the research is significant at all: clearly these researchers were dumb to pick this hypothesis in the first place!
Years pass, and other researchers pick up on the topic and some find significant results in favour. This gets pulbished and generates a lot of buzz. The original researchers whose paper was rejected (or other researchers with similar data) now get in on it and say "wait a minute, I tested that, and there was no statistical significance one way or the other". They now make some changes in the manuscript that was rejected to show that they are invalidating prior research which did find an effect in their own data set, and send it for publication. It now gets published and generates quite a lot of buzz, because it is no longer a research paper that proposes a stupid hypothesis that turns out to be false, herpaderp. No, it is now a research paper that contradicts a popular hypothesis, which is valuable research. Eventually with enough studies, someone will gather all the data and do some meta-analysis, and average out all the different subgroup analyses for and against the hypothesis and say something one way or the other about the country as a whole (and other people will argue that that statistical analysis is wrong, and a different method should be used, which finds a different effect, etc. etc. etc.), but these are not the negative results that don't get published. These negative results definitely do get published.
The problem with negative results not getting published is in the first part: the paper was rejected because it found no significant result because the reviewers couldn't argue that their hypothesis was interesting to study in the first place. But when is a hypothesis "uninteresting"? What if a (small) group of other researchers are actually also interested in this hypothesis. The same study keeps getting repeated (wasting resources), never finding significant results, and never getting published. For instance, someone might be studying the effect of peanut butter on the rotation of the earth. They find no result, and get laughed away from the journal. Two months later, someone else, unrelated, is also interested in whether peanut butter has any effect on the rotation of the earth... etc. Wouldn't it be better if at some point, someone would accept the paper showing that peanut butter has no effect on the rotation of the earth, and allow all these crazy peanut-butter-rotation-scientists to get on and study something useful?
|
On July 20 2017 21:56 Zambrah wrote:
From the moment the insurance, you're 21 years old... You start working and youre paying $12 a year... For insurance...
Please Jesus someone translate cause this gives me the impression he thinks insurance costs 12 a year and I just... I mean... I am so... Befuddled?
i think applecare for an iphone costs more than that.
i guess trump really is that stupid. he figured it costs a dollar, multiplied it by 12?
|
The wage gap discussion is always interesting because the core argument that it doesn’t exist is based on the idea that is a natural function of free market capitalism. That it is just natural the average woman is paid less due to natural market factors. Mind you, those natural market factors were also used to justify firing people simply because they got old, forcing people to work weekends and not providing sick days. But those are in the past and this is different.
|
On July 20 2017 21:56 Zambrah wrote:
From the moment the insurance, you're 21 years old... You start working and youre paying $12 a year... For insurance...
Please Jesus someone translate cause this gives me the impression he thinks insurance costs 12 a year and I just... I mean... I am so... Befuddled?
Dont forget that it also takes until your 70 to have a good plan ^^
Who knew healthcare could be so complicated!.
|
|
|
|
|
On July 20 2017 22:46 ticklishmusic wrote:Show nested quote +On July 20 2017 21:56 Zambrah wrote:
From the moment the insurance, you're 21 years old... You start working and youre paying $12 a year... For insurance...
Please Jesus someone translate cause this gives me the impression he thinks insurance costs 12 a year and I just... I mean... I am so... Befuddled? i think applecare for an iphone costs more than that. i guess trump really is that stupid. he figured it costs a dollar, multiplied it by 12?
I'm trying to imagine what makes him think 12 dollars, is he thinking that his health care costs so much but he's rich so he'll just scale it down? But that involves math so that can't be it, so I have to imagine some malicious/delusional loon told him that's what health insurance costs and he just goes with that?
|
|
|
|
|
What do people think of this?
According to The Hollywood Reporter, Game Of Thrones showrunners David Benioff and D.B. Weiss are working on another big HBO drama that might fill the hole that their dragon show will soon be leaving. Titled Confederate, the series takes place in an alternate reality in which the southern states did secede from the Union and America is now on the brink of its third Civil War. In this new reality, “slavery remains legal and has evolved into a modern institution,” which is a fun plot point for our current political climate, and the series will follow a group of characters on both sides of the “Mason-Dixon Demilitarized Zone” including “freedom fighters, slave hunters, politicians, abolitionists, journalists, the executives of a slave-holding conglomerate, and the families of people in their thrall.
Game Of Thrones showrunners developing alternate-history Civil War drama for HBO
I think it's going to be a disaster, especially without black people involved as showrunners.
|
I expect nothing good to come of that.
|
On July 20 2017 22:53 Plansix wrote:
The wage gap discussion is always interesting because the core argument that it doesn’t exist is based on the idea that is a natural function of free market capitalism. That it is just natural the average woman is paid less due to natural market factors. Mind you, those natural market factors were also used to justify firing people simply because they got old, forcing people to work weekends and not providing sick days. But those are in the past and this is different.
The market also tends to pay less to people with less experience and less qualifications, people doing more accessible work, and people doing work that's not dangerous or difficult, will that one day be the past we hope?
|
On July 20 2017 23:11 Mercy13 wrote:What do people think of this? Show nested quote +According to The Hollywood Reporter, Game Of Thrones showrunners David Benioff and D.B. Weiss are working on another big HBO drama that might fill the hole that their dragon show will soon be leaving. Titled Confederate, the series takes place in an alternate reality in which the southern states did secede from the Union and America is now on the brink of its third Civil War. In this new reality, “slavery remains legal and has evolved into a modern institution,” which is a fun plot point for our current political climate, and the series will follow a group of characters on both sides of the “Mason-Dixon Demilitarized Zone” including “freedom fighters, slave hunters, politicians, abolitionists, journalists, the executives of a slave-holding conglomerate, and the families of people in their thrall. Game Of Thrones showrunners developing alternate-history Civil War drama for HBOI think it's going to be a disaster, especially without black people involved as showrunners.
There are many shows I do not care for that I simply have no reason to care about. If they wanted to remake Birth of a Nation into a TV series I would care about as much.
|
On July 20 2017 22:44 Wegandi wrote:Show nested quote +On July 20 2017 21:41 PoulsenB wrote:On July 20 2017 21:29 Kickboxer wrote:
One reason men are paid more is that the top end of the professional range for most of the highest paid occupations, meaning working 10 hours a day 6 days a week in banking, law, stock exchange, surgery, management, gambling, programing etc. is almost exclusively occupied by men - since men are, in general, the only ones crazy enough to live like that.
It's not a knock on women, the question is rather why anyone would be willing to sacrifice their complete intimate life for career and status. When it comes to these kinds of humans, the ration between men and women is totally broken and doesn't seem to be changing. Likely connected to motherhood on the one hand and testosterone on the other.
Another reason is men take all the dangerous occupations, and all those that require peak physical performance. Many are well compensated. For example, male sportsmen earn an extra zero on their contract since they bring in ten times as many viewers. Which only makes sense.
How to address these? The wage gap relates to situations where a woman earns less than a man on the same position (e.g. two employees in the same company doing the same job, but a woman earns less than a man). Gender ratio disproportions in employment for different occupations are another thing altogether. Which is a meaningless definition. It does not take into account experience, productivity, wage negotiation, etc. Take an area where there are a lot of women for instance - healthcare. A RN who has 8 years of experience will be getting paid more than a RN who just graduated, yet, they're doing the same job. You call this (assume different genders for sake of argument) "wage discrimination", I call it sanity. Besides, if you look at under 40 working population, females make slightly more than their male counterparts. Why on earth this "wage discrimination" non-sense is still toted around like it's fact is beyond me.
Maybe I wasn't specific enough - I meant a situation where out of two people on the same position and similar work skills/experience, a woman is paid less (e.g. entry-level workers fresh out of school with no prior job experience and similar skillsets). Of course an employee who is more experienced should, and will, earn more. And I wasn't "toting around" anything, but rather giving a definition.
|
On July 20 2017 23:11 Mercy13 wrote:What do people think of this? Show nested quote +According to The Hollywood Reporter, Game Of Thrones showrunners David Benioff and D.B. Weiss are working on another big HBO drama that might fill the hole that their dragon show will soon be leaving. Titled Confederate, the series takes place in an alternate reality in which the southern states did secede from the Union and America is now on the brink of its third Civil War. In this new reality, “slavery remains legal and has evolved into a modern institution,” which is a fun plot point for our current political climate, and the series will follow a group of characters on both sides of the “Mason-Dixon Demilitarized Zone” including “freedom fighters, slave hunters, politicians, abolitionists, journalists, the executives of a slave-holding conglomerate, and the families of people in their thrall. Game Of Thrones showrunners developing alternate-history Civil War drama for HBOI think it's going to be a disaster, especially without black people involved as showrunners.
I can't even wrap my mind around why they think that will be a good idea. I'm actually hurting my brain trying to understand this reasoning. Like, I'm just boggled.
|
On July 20 2017 23:26 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:Show nested quote +On July 20 2017 23:11 Mercy13 wrote:What do people think of this? According to The Hollywood Reporter, Game Of Thrones showrunners David Benioff and D.B. Weiss are working on another big HBO drama that might fill the hole that their dragon show will soon be leaving. Titled Confederate, the series takes place in an alternate reality in which the southern states did secede from the Union and America is now on the brink of its third Civil War. In this new reality, “slavery remains legal and has evolved into a modern institution,” which is a fun plot point for our current political climate, and the series will follow a group of characters on both sides of the “Mason-Dixon Demilitarized Zone” including “freedom fighters, slave hunters, politicians, abolitionists, journalists, the executives of a slave-holding conglomerate, and the families of people in their thrall. Game Of Thrones showrunners developing alternate-history Civil War drama for HBOI think it's going to be a disaster, especially without black people involved as showrunners. I can't even wrap my mind around why they think that will be a good idea. I'm actually hurting my brain trying to understand this reasoning. Like, I'm just boggled.
When I think of creative directors and producers that can handle the nuances of slavery and oppression without using it for pure titillation, I think of the people running Game of Thrones on HBO. Creative people who think “You know what would make this dark and real, showing all the all camera stuff from the books on camera.” How can we show how oppressed women are in this world? Lots of on camera rape, especially at the end of episodes. Boobs everywhere too.
I give that an 85% chance of being pure garbage, and not in the fun way like True Detective season 2.
|
On July 20 2017 23:11 Mercy13 wrote:What do people think of this? Show nested quote +According to The Hollywood Reporter, Game Of Thrones showrunners David Benioff and D.B. Weiss are working on another big HBO drama that might fill the hole that their dragon show will soon be leaving. Titled Confederate, the series takes place in an alternate reality in which the southern states did secede from the Union and America is now on the brink of its third Civil War. In this new reality, “slavery remains legal and has evolved into a modern institution,” which is a fun plot point for our current political climate, and the series will follow a group of characters on both sides of the “Mason-Dixon Demilitarized Zone” including “freedom fighters, slave hunters, politicians, abolitionists, journalists, the executives of a slave-holding conglomerate, and the families of people in their thrall. Game Of Thrones showrunners developing alternate-history Civil War drama for HBOI think it's going to be a disaster, especially without black people involved as showrunners.
sounds like trouble.
it also ignores the economic realities, but thats no surprise in fiction. not sure what year its set in; but I expect a lot of stuff that just wont make sense.
of course good writing and acting can makee any premise enjoyable enough.
|
How can you make slavery an institution, with 2 civil wars already done, and not have it lambasted? As a black male, I'd be hard pressed to even attempt to watch it. That just...hurts. I understand all of the political and current conditions of society playing a role, but it's a dumb move. There are other ways to make this without using slavery of blacks (assumption) into a staple of an HBO series.
Edit2: Harry Harrison did it with his trilogy. The Red Rising trilogy also does a good job of doing what they are proposing. Maybe I'm being overly sensitive.
|
On July 20 2017 23:35 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:
How can you make slavery an institution, with 2 civil wars already done, and not have it lambasted? As a black male, I'd be hard pressed to even attempt to watch it. That just...hurts. I understand all of the political and current conditions of society playing a role, but it's a dumb move. There are other ways to make this without using slavery of blacks (assumption) into a staple of an HBO series.
Not only that, but it allows people to engage with racism and oppression in this complete safe, fantasy setting. It is the standard Hollywood treatment of racism, talk about the civil war, white guilt and slavery. Forget all that modern stuff with real modern day implications. It is irritating, since HBO also made The Wire and are clearly capable of greenlighting better.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
