|
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. |
Just so you know, Obama is pretty right wing by all but American standards.
All his policies are pilfered from the Republicans of 20 - 30 years ago.
He just looks like he's on the left because everyone else in America is ridiculously far right.
One example: Abortion is legal in Canada. Our current conservative (by Canadian standards) government recently said that they aren't even going to open up the debate about abortion because it's legal and that's the way it's going to stay.
|
On January 30 2014 08:00 nunez wrote:Show nested quote +On January 29 2014 23:59 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On January 29 2014 23:16 nunez wrote:On January 29 2014 15:36 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On January 29 2014 14:43 nunez wrote:On January 29 2014 11:40 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On January 29 2014 11:23 nunez wrote:On January 29 2014 10:09 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On January 29 2014 09:12 nunez wrote:On January 29 2014 00:47 JonnyBNoHo wrote:
[quote]
She goes through examples of both linear and non-linear jobs and explains the differences between them. Where in there is your criticism, exactly? What preconceived notions do you have a problem with? the foundation (the framework) for this preconceived notion that "... that nonliear pay with respect to hours worked is responsible for the majority of the resuidual differences observed in earnings by gender" amounts to: 1) a restatement of said notion 2) contradicting said notion (the model is linear) you can swap out "with respect to hours worked", "with respect to gender discrimination" or "with respect to beans consumed" or whatever else... it is the method that is flawed. she has wrapped her beliefs in something she doesn't understand and you are misconstruing her ignorance as a convincing case. the paper or essay is largely unchanged if you strip away this particular idiocy, you will still find it agreeable... What is "this preconceived notion"? There's an observation - that some pay is linear and some is non-linear. That's not a modeled result, or theory - it's an observed fact. When that observed fact is utilized, the residual differences decline. The paper goes on to describe what makes a job linear vs non-linear and what trends exist. i am not able rightly to apprehend the kind of confusion of ideas that could provoke such a post. linearity is abstract. nothing real is linear, 'misguided belief' not 'observed fact'.
even a simple resistor's behaviour is only close enough (real) to that of a linear function (abstract) under certain conditions (not to mention the axioms needed to develop the mathematics needed for the linear function itself). where's the humility?re-read my previous post dilligently and i wont have to repeat myself to answer your question. OK, so you're just trolling. Got it. no, not at all. i overestimated you, my apologies. i thought pretending to lose your reading comprehension was some sort of defense mechanism of yours. i'll break it down to ABC for you, see if that gets us anywhere. the piece de resistance of the paper is the claim that: that nonliear pay with respect to hours worked is responsible for the majority of the resuidual differences observed in earnings by gender. i'll split the method used in the paper to give weight to this with the mathematical framework into three: A: the claim itself which implies B.
B: a dichtonomy beteen 'linear' and 'non-linear' wage wrt what percentage of full-time you are working at.
C: develop a mathematical framework within B that explains the existence of the nonlinear dynamic according to A. this is all sorts of wrong. it doesn't show anything, it all follows from A. you can swap out the bolded part in the quote with whateverand modify the wording in the model developed in C to reflect it.
the world is non-linear, establishing B with any rigor is impossible, here it is implied that it exists. without it the claim is non-sensical.
the mathematical model in C explains a linear dynamic (that is the opposite of A according B). on another note: poor bastard cory. Oh, but it's not just a modeled thing. Linear jobs are empirically observed to exist. As are non-linear jobs. Also, when the wage gap is calculated it's assumed that jobs are linear, so that if women work 80% of the hours, they *should* earn 80% of the pay and if they don't - there's a residual left over. As you say, the world is non-linear, so that approach is wrong and this paper seeks to correct that. more precise: it tries to make a case for what is causing the non-linear dynamic. i think you will find that putting real world process into a linear framework is an attempt at modelling. however it's crude and even the simplest of process will only behave linearly under strict conditions (re: the resistor). so if you want attempt to establish this 'linear vs non-linear output wrt. % of full-time position' dichtonomy you will have to excercise a bit more rigour than stating it as fact. pointless excercise if the goal is to salvage the method used in the paper (re: previous post), but it will be interesting nonetheless... There's no relevance to anything you're saying though. You're complaint that there is no *real* linear is irrelevant. It doesn't change anything meaningful. If linear is wrong, than this paper is a huge step forward over the status quo. Edit: the point of the paper isn't how precisely it measures the linear vs non-linear dynamic... ah man, jonny, you have worn my patience thin by now. your posts have been a series of irrelevant or unintelligible one-liners stated as self-explanatory facts juxtaposed with questions whose answer is readily available in the quoted posts. all the while i have been constantly rephrasing myself in an attempt to make my argument comprehensible and struggling to pull your feet out of your mouth so you can produce a proper response to it. and you still have the feeblest of grasps on my gripe with the paper and the relevant parts of it. it is bumming me out to be honest. i find comfort in "not a modeled result, or theory - it's an observed fact" morphing into "empirically observed to exist" and now "You're complaint that there is no *real* linear is irrelevant [sic]". you might be getting less coherent, but at least your ignorance is getting less obnoxious. you thinking that the paper is huge step forward on account of "linear is wrong [sic]" when the model developed in the paper itself is linear (re: my first post) paints the picture.
No, I still don't really understand your criticism. You wrote:
the piece de resistance of the paper is the claim that: Show nested quote +that nonliear pay with respect to hours worked is responsible for the majority of the resuidual differences observed in earnings by gender. i'll split the method used in the paper to give weight to this with the mathematical framework into three: A: the claim itself which implies B.
B: a dichtonomy beteen 'linear' and 'non-linear' wage wrt what percentage of full-time you are working at.
C: develop a mathematical framework within B that explains the existence of the nonlinear dynamic according to A.
You may be losing me at C. The paper isn't about a mathematical framework arbitrarily constructed. It's based on real wage data.
|
On January 30 2014 09:06 SnipedSoul wrote:
Just so you know, Obama is pretty right wing by all but American standards.
All his policies are pilfered from the Republicans of 20 - 30 years ago.
He just looks like he's on the left because everyone else in America is ridiculously far right.
One example: Abortion is legal in Canada. Our current conservative (by Canadian standards) government recently said that they aren't even going to open up the debate about abortion because it's legal and that's the way it's going to stay.
I've always thought of obama as fairly moderate, despite the constant "far left wing" claims by the right.
|
On January 30 2014 09:31 wei2coolman wrote:Show nested quote +On January 30 2014 09:06 SnipedSoul wrote:
Just so you know, Obama is pretty right wing by all but American standards.
All his policies are pilfered from the Republicans of 20 - 30 years ago.
He just looks like he's on the left because everyone else in America is ridiculously far right.
One example: Abortion is legal in Canada. Our current conservative (by Canadian standards) government recently said that they aren't even going to open up the debate about abortion because it's legal and that's the way it's going to stay. I've always thought of obama as fairly moderate, despite the constant "far left wing" claims by the right.
He is. Any conservative that wants to paint him as anything but a moderate is clueless. The man talks big to get his party's support but hasn't seriously delivered on anything from gun control to environmentalism to healthcare to the military. Everything he's either ignored or actively gone the other way (expanding drone attacks, NSA, Obamacare is nothing like socialized healthcare that true Leftists want).
|
On January 30 2014 09:31 wei2coolman wrote:Show nested quote +On January 30 2014 09:06 SnipedSoul wrote:
Just so you know, Obama is pretty right wing by all but American standards.
All his policies are pilfered from the Republicans of 20 - 30 years ago.
He just looks like he's on the left because everyone else in America is ridiculously far right.
One example: Abortion is legal in Canada. Our current conservative (by Canadian standards) government recently said that they aren't even going to open up the debate about abortion because it's legal and that's the way it's going to stay. I've always thought of obama as fairly moderate, despite the constant "far left wing" claims by the right.
He was a rather liberal senator, so it was assumed that he would be a rather liberal president. He ended up being fairly moderate, though if that's because of his own preferences, Republicans holding him back or government inertia is an open, and possibly irrelevant, question.
|
On January 30 2014 09:11 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On January 30 2014 08:00 nunez wrote:On January 29 2014 23:59 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On January 29 2014 23:16 nunez wrote:On January 29 2014 15:36 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On January 29 2014 14:43 nunez wrote:On January 29 2014 11:40 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On January 29 2014 11:23 nunez wrote:On January 29 2014 10:09 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On January 29 2014 09:12 nunez wrote:
[quote]
the foundation (the framework) for this preconceived notion that "... that nonliear pay with respect to hours worked is responsible for the majority of the resuidual differences observed in earnings by gender" amounts to:
1) a restatement of said notion
2) contradicting said notion (the model is linear)
you can swap out "with respect to hours worked", "with respect to gender discrimination" or "with respect to beans consumed" or whatever else... it is the method that is flawed. she has wrapped her beliefs in something she doesn't understand and you are misconstruing her ignorance as a convincing case.
the paper or essay is largely unchanged if you strip away this particular idiocy, you will still find it agreeable... What is "this preconceived notion"? There's an observation - that some pay is linear and some is non-linear. That's not a modeled result, or theory - it's an observed fact. When that observed fact is utilized, the residual differences decline. The paper goes on to describe what makes a job linear vs non-linear and what trends exist. i am not able rightly to apprehend the kind of confusion of ideas that could provoke such a post. linearity is abstract. nothing real is linear, 'misguided belief' not 'observed fact'.
even a simple resistor's behaviour is only close enough (real) to that of a linear function (abstract) under certain conditions (not to mention the axioms needed to develop the mathematics needed for the linear function itself). where's the humility?re-read my previous post dilligently and i wont have to repeat myself to answer your question. OK, so you're just trolling. Got it. no, not at all. i overestimated you, my apologies. i thought pretending to lose your reading comprehension was some sort of defense mechanism of yours. i'll break it down to ABC for you, see if that gets us anywhere. the piece de resistance of the paper is the claim that: that nonliear pay with respect to hours worked is responsible for the majority of the resuidual differences observed in earnings by gender. i'll split the method used in the paper to give weight to this with the mathematical framework into three: A: the claim itself which implies B.
B: a dichtonomy beteen 'linear' and 'non-linear' wage wrt what percentage of full-time you are working at.
C: develop a mathematical framework within B that explains the existence of the nonlinear dynamic according to A. this is all sorts of wrong. it doesn't show anything, it all follows from A. you can swap out the bolded part in the quote with whateverand modify the wording in the model developed in C to reflect it.
the world is non-linear, establishing B with any rigor is impossible, here it is implied that it exists. without it the claim is non-sensical.
the mathematical model in C explains a linear dynamic (that is the opposite of A according B). on another note: poor bastard cory. Oh, but it's not just a modeled thing. Linear jobs are empirically observed to exist. As are non-linear jobs. Also, when the wage gap is calculated it's assumed that jobs are linear, so that if women work 80% of the hours, they *should* earn 80% of the pay and if they don't - there's a residual left over. As you say, the world is non-linear, so that approach is wrong and this paper seeks to correct that. more precise: it tries to make a case for what is causing the non-linear dynamic. i think you will find that putting real world process into a linear framework is an attempt at modelling. however it's crude and even the simplest of process will only behave linearly under strict conditions (re: the resistor). so if you want attempt to establish this 'linear vs non-linear output wrt. % of full-time position' dichtonomy you will have to excercise a bit more rigour than stating it as fact. pointless excercise if the goal is to salvage the method used in the paper (re: previous post), but it will be interesting nonetheless... There's no relevance to anything you're saying though. You're complaint that there is no *real* linear is irrelevant. It doesn't change anything meaningful. If linear is wrong, than this paper is a huge step forward over the status quo. Edit: the point of the paper isn't how precisely it measures the linear vs non-linear dynamic... ah man, jonny, you have worn my patience thin by now. your posts have been a series of irrelevant or unintelligible one-liners stated as self-explanatory facts juxtaposed with questions whose answer is readily available in the quoted posts. all the while i have been constantly rephrasing myself in an attempt to make my argument comprehensible and struggling to pull your feet out of your mouth so you can produce a proper response to it. and you still have the feeblest of grasps on my gripe with the paper and the relevant parts of it. it is bumming me out to be honest. i find comfort in "not a modeled result, or theory - it's an observed fact" morphing into "empirically observed to exist" and now "You're complaint that there is no *real* linear is irrelevant [sic]". you might be getting less coherent, but at least your ignorance is getting less obnoxious. you thinking that the paper is huge step forward on account of "linear is wrong [sic]" when the model developed in the paper itself is linear (re: my first post) paints the picture. No, I still don't really understand your criticism. You wrote: Show nested quote +the piece de resistance of the paper is the claim that: that nonliear pay with respect to hours worked is responsible for the majority of the resuidual differences observed in earnings by gender. i'll split the method used in the paper to give weight to this with the mathematical framework into three: A: the claim itself which implies B.
B: a dichtonomy beteen 'linear' and 'non-linear' wage wrt what percentage of full-time you are working at.
C: develop a mathematical framework within B that explains the existence of the nonlinear dynamic according to A. You may be losing me at C. The paper isn't about a mathematical framework arbitrarily constructed. It's based on real wage data.
what is based on real wage data? 'The paper' or 'a mathematical framework'?
|
On January 30 2014 11:16 nunez wrote:Show nested quote +On January 30 2014 09:11 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On January 30 2014 08:00 nunez wrote:On January 29 2014 23:59 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On January 29 2014 23:16 nunez wrote:On January 29 2014 15:36 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On January 29 2014 14:43 nunez wrote:On January 29 2014 11:40 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On January 29 2014 11:23 nunez wrote:On January 29 2014 10:09 JonnyBNoHo wrote:
[quote]
What is "this preconceived notion"? There's an observation - that some pay is linear and some is non-linear. That's not a modeled result, or theory - it's an observed fact. When that observed fact is utilized, the residual differences decline.
The paper goes on to describe what makes a job linear vs non-linear and what trends exist. i am not able rightly to apprehend the kind of confusion of ideas that could provoke such a post. linearity is abstract. nothing real is linear, 'misguided belief' not 'observed fact'.
even a simple resistor's behaviour is only close enough (real) to that of a linear function (abstract) under certain conditions (not to mention the axioms needed to develop the mathematics needed for the linear function itself). where's the humility?re-read my previous post dilligently and i wont have to repeat myself to answer your question. OK, so you're just trolling. Got it. no, not at all. i overestimated you, my apologies. i thought pretending to lose your reading comprehension was some sort of defense mechanism of yours. i'll break it down to ABC for you, see if that gets us anywhere. the piece de resistance of the paper is the claim that: that nonliear pay with respect to hours worked is responsible for the majority of the resuidual differences observed in earnings by gender. i'll split the method used in the paper to give weight to this with the mathematical framework into three: A: the claim itself which implies B.
B: a dichtonomy beteen 'linear' and 'non-linear' wage wrt what percentage of full-time you are working at.
C: develop a mathematical framework within B that explains the existence of the nonlinear dynamic according to A. this is all sorts of wrong. it doesn't show anything, it all follows from A. you can swap out the bolded part in the quote with whateverand modify the wording in the model developed in C to reflect it.
the world is non-linear, establishing B with any rigor is impossible, here it is implied that it exists. without it the claim is non-sensical.
the mathematical model in C explains a linear dynamic (that is the opposite of A according B). on another note: poor bastard cory. Oh, but it's not just a modeled thing. Linear jobs are empirically observed to exist. As are non-linear jobs. Also, when the wage gap is calculated it's assumed that jobs are linear, so that if women work 80% of the hours, they *should* earn 80% of the pay and if they don't - there's a residual left over. As you say, the world is non-linear, so that approach is wrong and this paper seeks to correct that. more precise: it tries to make a case for what is causing the non-linear dynamic. i think you will find that putting real world process into a linear framework is an attempt at modelling. however it's crude and even the simplest of process will only behave linearly under strict conditions (re: the resistor). so if you want attempt to establish this 'linear vs non-linear output wrt. % of full-time position' dichtonomy you will have to excercise a bit more rigour than stating it as fact. pointless excercise if the goal is to salvage the method used in the paper (re: previous post), but it will be interesting nonetheless... There's no relevance to anything you're saying though. You're complaint that there is no *real* linear is irrelevant. It doesn't change anything meaningful. If linear is wrong, than this paper is a huge step forward over the status quo. Edit: the point of the paper isn't how precisely it measures the linear vs non-linear dynamic... ah man, jonny, you have worn my patience thin by now. your posts have been a series of irrelevant or unintelligible one-liners stated as self-explanatory facts juxtaposed with questions whose answer is readily available in the quoted posts. all the while i have been constantly rephrasing myself in an attempt to make my argument comprehensible and struggling to pull your feet out of your mouth so you can produce a proper response to it. and you still have the feeblest of grasps on my gripe with the paper and the relevant parts of it. it is bumming me out to be honest. i find comfort in "not a modeled result, or theory - it's an observed fact" morphing into "empirically observed to exist" and now "You're complaint that there is no *real* linear is irrelevant [sic]". you might be getting less coherent, but at least your ignorance is getting less obnoxious. you thinking that the paper is huge step forward on account of "linear is wrong [sic]" when the model developed in the paper itself is linear (re: my first post) paints the picture. No, I still don't really understand your criticism. You wrote: the piece de resistance of the paper is the claim that: that nonliear pay with respect to hours worked is responsible for the majority of the resuidual differences observed in earnings by gender. i'll split the method used in the paper to give weight to this with the mathematical framework into three: A: the claim itself which implies B.
B: a dichtonomy beteen 'linear' and 'non-linear' wage wrt what percentage of full-time you are working at.
C: develop a mathematical framework within B that explains the existence of the nonlinear dynamic according to A. You may be losing me at C. The paper isn't about a mathematical framework arbitrarily constructed. It's based on real wage data. what is based on real wage data? 'The paper' or 'a mathematical framework'?
The paper.
|
On January 30 2014 11:32 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On January 30 2014 11:16 nunez wrote:On January 30 2014 09:11 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On January 30 2014 08:00 nunez wrote:On January 29 2014 23:59 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On January 29 2014 23:16 nunez wrote:On January 29 2014 15:36 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On January 29 2014 14:43 nunez wrote:On January 29 2014 11:40 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On January 29 2014 11:23 nunez wrote:
[quote]
i am not able rightly to apprehend the kind of confusion of ideas that could provoke such a post.
linearity is abstract. nothing real is linear, 'misguided belief' not 'observed fact'.
even a simple resistor's behaviour is only close enough (real) to that of a linear function (abstract) under certain conditions (not to mention the axioms needed to develop the mathematics needed for the linear function itself). where's the humility?
re-read my previous post dilligently and i wont have to repeat myself to answer your question. OK, so you're just trolling. Got it. no, not at all. i overestimated you, my apologies. i thought pretending to lose your reading comprehension was some sort of defense mechanism of yours. i'll break it down to ABC for you, see if that gets us anywhere. the piece de resistance of the paper is the claim that: that nonliear pay with respect to hours worked is responsible for the majority of the resuidual differences observed in earnings by gender. i'll split the method used in the paper to give weight to this with the mathematical framework into three: A: the claim itself which implies B.
B: a dichtonomy beteen 'linear' and 'non-linear' wage wrt what percentage of full-time you are working at.
C: develop a mathematical framework within B that explains the existence of the nonlinear dynamic according to A. this is all sorts of wrong. it doesn't show anything, it all follows from A. you can swap out the bolded part in the quote with whateverand modify the wording in the model developed in C to reflect it.
the world is non-linear, establishing B with any rigor is impossible, here it is implied that it exists. without it the claim is non-sensical.
the mathematical model in C explains a linear dynamic (that is the opposite of A according B). on another note: poor bastard cory. Oh, but it's not just a modeled thing. Linear jobs are empirically observed to exist. As are non-linear jobs. Also, when the wage gap is calculated it's assumed that jobs are linear, so that if women work 80% of the hours, they *should* earn 80% of the pay and if they don't - there's a residual left over. As you say, the world is non-linear, so that approach is wrong and this paper seeks to correct that. more precise: it tries to make a case for what is causing the non-linear dynamic. i think you will find that putting real world process into a linear framework is an attempt at modelling. however it's crude and even the simplest of process will only behave linearly under strict conditions (re: the resistor). so if you want attempt to establish this 'linear vs non-linear output wrt. % of full-time position' dichtonomy you will have to excercise a bit more rigour than stating it as fact. pointless excercise if the goal is to salvage the method used in the paper (re: previous post), but it will be interesting nonetheless... There's no relevance to anything you're saying though. You're complaint that there is no *real* linear is irrelevant. It doesn't change anything meaningful. If linear is wrong, than this paper is a huge step forward over the status quo. Edit: the point of the paper isn't how precisely it measures the linear vs non-linear dynamic... ah man, jonny, you have worn my patience thin by now. your posts have been a series of irrelevant or unintelligible one-liners stated as self-explanatory facts juxtaposed with questions whose answer is readily available in the quoted posts. all the while i have been constantly rephrasing myself in an attempt to make my argument comprehensible and struggling to pull your feet out of your mouth so you can produce a proper response to it. and you still have the feeblest of grasps on my gripe with the paper and the relevant parts of it. it is bumming me out to be honest. i find comfort in "not a modeled result, or theory - it's an observed fact" morphing into "empirically observed to exist" and now "You're complaint that there is no *real* linear is irrelevant [sic]". you might be getting less coherent, but at least your ignorance is getting less obnoxious. you thinking that the paper is huge step forward on account of "linear is wrong [sic]" when the model developed in the paper itself is linear (re: my first post) paints the picture. No, I still don't really understand your criticism. You wrote: the piece de resistance of the paper is the claim that: that nonliear pay with respect to hours worked is responsible for the majority of the resuidual differences observed in earnings by gender. i'll split the method used in the paper to give weight to this with the mathematical framework into three: A: the claim itself which implies B.
B: a dichtonomy beteen 'linear' and 'non-linear' wage wrt what percentage of full-time you are working at.
C: develop a mathematical framework within B that explains the existence of the nonlinear dynamic according to A. You may be losing me at C. The paper isn't about a mathematical framework arbitrarily constructed. It's based on real wage data. what is based on real wage data? 'The paper' or 'a mathematical framework'? The paper.
show me how you inferred that "i claimed it was not" through the post you quoted.
The paper isn't about a mathematical framework arbitrarily constructed. the paper or essay is largely unchanged if you strip away this particular idiocy, you will still find it agreeable...
arbitrarily i'll split the method used in the paper to give weight to this with the mathematical framework ...that explains the existence of the nonlinear dynamic according to A A sparse framework will demonstrate these points and develop them further.
+ Show Spoiler +
|
On January 30 2014 11:36 nunez wrote:Show nested quote +On January 30 2014 11:32 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On January 30 2014 11:16 nunez wrote:On January 30 2014 09:11 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On January 30 2014 08:00 nunez wrote:On January 29 2014 23:59 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On January 29 2014 23:16 nunez wrote:On January 29 2014 15:36 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On January 29 2014 14:43 nunez wrote:On January 29 2014 11:40 JonnyBNoHo wrote:
[quote]
OK, so you're just trolling. Got it. no, not at all. i overestimated you, my apologies. i thought pretending to lose your reading comprehension was some sort of defense mechanism of yours. i'll break it down to ABC for you, see if that gets us anywhere. the piece de resistance of the paper is the claim that: that nonliear pay with respect to hours worked is responsible for the majority of the resuidual differences observed in earnings by gender. i'll split the method used in the paper to give weight to this with the mathematical framework into three: A: the claim itself which implies B.
B: a dichtonomy beteen 'linear' and 'non-linear' wage wrt what percentage of full-time you are working at.
C: develop a mathematical framework within B that explains the existence of the nonlinear dynamic according to A. this is all sorts of wrong. it doesn't show anything, it all follows from A. you can swap out the bolded part in the quote with whateverand modify the wording in the model developed in C to reflect it.
the world is non-linear, establishing B with any rigor is impossible, here it is implied that it exists. without it the claim is non-sensical.
the mathematical model in C explains a linear dynamic (that is the opposite of A according B). on another note: poor bastard cory. Oh, but it's not just a modeled thing. Linear jobs are empirically observed to exist. As are non-linear jobs. Also, when the wage gap is calculated it's assumed that jobs are linear, so that if women work 80% of the hours, they *should* earn 80% of the pay and if they don't - there's a residual left over. As you say, the world is non-linear, so that approach is wrong and this paper seeks to correct that. more precise: it tries to make a case for what is causing the non-linear dynamic. i think you will find that putting real world process into a linear framework is an attempt at modelling. however it's crude and even the simplest of process will only behave linearly under strict conditions (re: the resistor). so if you want attempt to establish this 'linear vs non-linear output wrt. % of full-time position' dichtonomy you will have to excercise a bit more rigour than stating it as fact. pointless excercise if the goal is to salvage the method used in the paper (re: previous post), but it will be interesting nonetheless... There's no relevance to anything you're saying though. You're complaint that there is no *real* linear is irrelevant. It doesn't change anything meaningful. If linear is wrong, than this paper is a huge step forward over the status quo. Edit: the point of the paper isn't how precisely it measures the linear vs non-linear dynamic... ah man, jonny, you have worn my patience thin by now. your posts have been a series of irrelevant or unintelligible one-liners stated as self-explanatory facts juxtaposed with questions whose answer is readily available in the quoted posts. all the while i have been constantly rephrasing myself in an attempt to make my argument comprehensible and struggling to pull your feet out of your mouth so you can produce a proper response to it. and you still have the feeblest of grasps on my gripe with the paper and the relevant parts of it. it is bumming me out to be honest. i find comfort in "not a modeled result, or theory - it's an observed fact" morphing into "empirically observed to exist" and now "You're complaint that there is no *real* linear is irrelevant [sic]". you might be getting less coherent, but at least your ignorance is getting less obnoxious. you thinking that the paper is huge step forward on account of "linear is wrong [sic]" when the model developed in the paper itself is linear (re: my first post) paints the picture. No, I still don't really understand your criticism. You wrote: the piece de resistance of the paper is the claim that: that nonliear pay with respect to hours worked is responsible for the majority of the resuidual differences observed in earnings by gender. i'll split the method used in the paper to give weight to this with the mathematical framework into three: A: the claim itself which implies B.
B: a dichtonomy beteen 'linear' and 'non-linear' wage wrt what percentage of full-time you are working at.
C: develop a mathematical framework within B that explains the existence of the nonlinear dynamic according to A. You may be losing me at C. The paper isn't about a mathematical framework arbitrarily constructed. It's based on real wage data. what is based on real wage data? 'The paper' or 'a mathematical framework'? The paper. show me how you inferred that i claimed it was not through the post you quoted.
Eh? I'm not really inferring that you claimed it was not. I'm trying to figure out where you lost me in Part C:
C: develop a mathematical framework within B that explains the existence of the nonlinear dynamic according to A.this is all sorts of wrong.
[list]it doesn't show anything, it all follows from A. you can swap out the bolded part in the quote with whateverand modify the wording in the model developed in C to reflect it. [/list]
You need to explain this part better.
What's done in the paper is that wage data is analyzed and some jobs are found to be non-linear. That dynamic is then used to explain part of the gender gap residual (which as-is assumes linearity). Where does your criticism come in? When the data on a few jobs gets extrapolated across other jobs?
|
Ignoring the ACA, I think if Obama were republican and white he would be considered a pretty standard conservative president. As the other poster said, he talks the liberal talk but if you look at how gov. has changed under him it's hard to argue that he is not at least moderate. Calling him a leftist is ridiculous hyperbole unless you want to redefine what leftist has always meant.
Actually the party system in this country is ridiculous, because politics is actually a spectrum. However, the American system can really only hold two major parties at a time, so you have to basically meet in the middle of what each party's members want. You also get a lot of issues firmly divided along party lines, and some single issue voters (abortion, welfare, unions) care about one thing more than anything else, so some people don't get much representation of other things that they believe in. The end result is pretty bad.
Does anybody actually think that the two party system is better than one that allows for multiple parties? Also, does anybody actually think that lobbying is good for the country? Personally, my political views cannot be represented at all under the current system because they are too polarized, and I think there are a lot of people on the opposite side and in the very middle who don't get good representation either.
Also, calling taxes theft is a blatant ploy at giving taxes an even worse connotation than what they have already. It's nothing but a rhetorical strategy. I'm sorry that you don't want to pay taxes, but news flash: politicians (of both major parties!) make big promises and don't touch third rails - both of which are very expensive. You have to have taxes to support that.
|
@JBOY
eh? then why did you type it out in the first place?
what dynamic exactly? more specific: what is causing this dynamic?
it should be fairly obvious what part my critiscism concerns, namely the chapter developing the model. did you actually read the paper? this part is not mentioned in the blog. there is no data being extrapolated, it's all assumpions.
|
On January 29 2014 19:31 Doublemint wrote:Show nested quote +On January 29 2014 12:56 Introvert wrote:On January 29 2014 12:51 Mohdoo wrote:On January 29 2014 12:48 Introvert wrote:On January 29 2014 12:40 Mohdoo wrote:On January 29 2014 12:37 Introvert wrote:On January 29 2014 12:32 Mohdoo wrote:On January 29 2014 12:31 Introvert wrote:On January 29 2014 12:24 Roe wrote:On January 29 2014 12:22 Introvert wrote:
Thank goodness that's over. He didn't actually say anything (well, besides "I'll act on my own!"). This is one of those times I hope he doesn't mean what he says... At least he hit every talking point.
But this push for more executive action really is the scary part. like what, trying to save negotiations from congress' sabotage? obama's always doing flowery language and then backing down to his conservative side I like how you refer to the House, in theory the closest branch to the people, as "sabotaging." When he was re-elected, so was the House. When he was re-elected, the Constitution was not also up for election. That doesn't GO up for election. So yes, when he acts outside the bounds of the law for expediency, it concerns me. How can you trust ANY politician with that kind of power? He's still far left. Just because he doesn't act to the astounding extent you apparently want him to doesn't mean he's not far left. What laws is Obama breaking? FYI, the Constitution IS law. So with that in mind... Rewriting Obamacare deadlines, trying to violate the Recess Appointment Clause, passing a bill with the individual mandate, etc. I could give you more, but this would be the 184674 they've been laid out. These are just the most recent. Also some of this stuff is nuanced, especially when it relates to more vague sections of the Constitution. So when the supreme court says something is acceptable, what further basis is there for something to be illegal? Because the Court's ruling doesn't make it correct? That should be obvious (hell, they can't even agree on most things). Besides, I don't recall the Court ruling on these deadline changes. (The appointment case is going to be decided in June). I would direct you earlier in the thread (at multiple points) where this was discussed. But if you'd like I suppose we could start down this path once again.... The law changed when the supreme court said so. You are describing what you wish was the case, not what happened. So then why not just abolish all other branches of the government? I KNOW the mandate is the law, but I'm saying it's in violation of the Constitution. Jefferson's fear of the Courts was well placed, I'm afraid. you don't seem to know what 'left' means. I mean American left. Maybe you should give the supreme court justices a lesson then. What you say is an opinion. It does not make it fact, hell it does not even make it relevant. If you want to change it try to get Republicans into power so they can get more conservative leaning judges into office. Or even better, work towards becoming a kickass lawyer/scholar in the field of law and get some major political backing/friends with power --> become a supreme court judge! Boom, suddenly what you say has meaning because the constitution gives these individuals power to decide what's constitutional and what is not. People are entitled to their own opinion, not their own facts. Show nested quote +On January 29 2014 13:16 Introvert wrote:On January 29 2014 13:06 zlefin wrote:
I don't think your definition of "left" is remotely accurate introvert; in fact, im' certain of it. Yours simply does not conform to reality of the definitions. Don't conflate undemocratic actions with Leftist beliefs, as they do not conform to the Left anymore than they do to the Right or the middle. you mean the boogy man? So far I've only used "left" in a general sense... how can my "definition" be wrong when I haven't given one? If you are referring to Again, just because he doesn't declare himself dictator and rob money out of the wealthy's bank account doesn't make him a moderate. then I congratulate you on taking that statement as an exact representation of what I think the left is. That statement is merely where I think Progressive ideology leads, except they will use the law to make it legal theft, if you will. But I doubt most liberals have actually thought far enough through that. They think that you can start with a powerful government and then stop it at some arbitrary point. They're just naive, not totalitarian. lol. spoken like a true Randroid.
I like Rand Paul, but I'm not a "Randroid." I don't hang on his every word, etc. I didn't even know he said something like that. (Also, I've had my views long before Rand came onto the scene.)
Again, I could go over this Obamacare thing again, it's one of my first set of posts in this thread.
I don't understand the fascination with judges speaking and THUS IT WAS SO. For example, the ACA case was decided 5-4. So clearly 5 or 4 of them are wrong! Hell, even within the majority there were stark differences! John Roberts used it to limit the Commerce Clause. Four other justices though the Commerce Clause WAS a justification. And they are all Ivy League educated! To call issues of that sort settled is absurd. The Court consists of 9 fallible, corruptible human beings. So please, defend the ACA with argument, don't just say "but the Court said!" Every time I've discussed the appropriate historical context, all its defenders do is just shout "majority says!" at me.
Progressives are anti-corruption, so yes. Not every progressive will be successful, but I think due to the nature of history we'll make progress eventually. Women got the right to vote, blacks became citizens and got the right to vote. People eventually realize some traditions are worth discarding and desire change.
Taxes aren't left/right, but of course they are political. Both the right and left could use taxes in favour of their agenda (left: basic/minimum income, right: consolidating or expanding the power of corporations or the government). You know he kept the great portion of the Bush tax cuts? ACA favours corporations. He's expanded drone strikes in other countries, spied on his own citizens, passed regulations that effectively do nothing. These make him the opposite of a leftist.
I referred you to EO count because you said obama is using more and more executive authority to prove he's a leftist, while clearly people who are the right-wing have used it more than him. Your point was countered successfully.
Why should someone be concerned if someone's got a pen and a phone? This is terrible fear mongering if that's what you're trying to accomplish. And no, I'm not a progressive/liberal. People need to stop labeling others by their political beliefs, it only serves to put them in a box and make it so the other person doesn't have to actually think issue by issue.
You missed what I was saying about corruption. I'm saying that just because Obama is corrupt and hasn't been able to accomplish all his goals (because of those darn "terrorists") doesn't mean he's not far left. Reality will always get in the way of achieving all one's goals. In this case, a pesky 2010 election was a major pain in his backside. I'm more amazed by how many people were taken in by him. A new senator from Chicago who gave one good speech? People actually thought he was going to be the Messiah of the Second Coming?
I don't think the term "Progressive" really means any of those things. Especially considering that the modern Progressive movement happened AFTER the 14th and 15th amendments. I do commend the movement on adopting that term though (just like they did with the term "liberal"), it's a really easy way to confuse people. It's actually reminiscent of the "Federalist/Anti-Federalist" nomenclature that was adopted during the fight for ratification. But I digress. Who can oppose "progress?"
The Progressive movement has, since the beginning, been about expanding government in order to help the people- to organize and equalize society.
The right favors low taxes to expand government? What? That's the left. The left is the party of the nanny state, not the right. You could argue the part about expanding the power of the corporation... I would dispute that since, if the government was operating on conservative, originalist principles, corporations wouldn't waste time lobbying for rules changes- because the Congress would know they didn't have the power to execute such things. But that's a side topic.
I gave you a list of leftist things. Again, we are going by American standards here. I don't really care about relative left and right anywhere else, since I have no experience or expertise on it.
The EO count is not the end all be all. Like I said, I gave a list of things he's done, and EOs have a legitimate purpose, so the pure number is useless. So no, point not countered. More like point ignored.
The pen and the phone statement is concerning because he's essentially saying that if the House doesn't do what he wants, he'll do it anyway. He echoed this in his State of the Union. If the left really is "pro separation of powers" (LOL), then shouldn't this statement be incredibly concerning to you?
If you aren't a liberal/progressive then you had me, everything you say is exactly what they say.
He was a rather liberal senator, so it was assumed that he would be a rather liberal president. He ended up being fairly moderate, though if that's because of his own preferences, Republicans holding him back or government inertia is an open, and possibly irrelevant, question.
Quite relevant, his voting record speaks volumes. Like I said, just because Congress stops one from going full socialized medicine in a single bill doesn't make him a moderate. It's like saying Reagan was a moderate person. He was far right (wanted to get rid of the Department of Education, but his own party stopped him!), but he had to deal with political realities.
Your just plain wrong.
Separation of power has just about nothing to do with size of goverment.
As an example, take any country that has a much bigger government (proportionally of course) then the US. Would you argue that the separation of powers is lacking in all of the european countries, just because we have a bigger government then you do?
Seperation of powers works completely independent of the size of government, as long as all of the three powers are still strong enough to keep each other in check. It stops working when one of the powers (usually the executive) becomes so strong that the others can no longer keep it in check, but that is a relative value compared to the other powers, not an absolute.
The US has a fairly unique structure in terms of SOP, so I can't comment on the relationship there. But history would indicate that the executive body (even if it be much closer to the legislative body) grows as the size and power of the government grows. It is certainly true in the history of this country. From Lincoln to FDR this has been the case.
Whatever the executive body consists of always grabs more power as government expands. The executive branch MUST grow in power to execute all its laws.
|
On January 30 2014 11:58 nunez wrote:Show nested quote +On January 30 2014 11:51 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On January 30 2014 11:36 nunez wrote:On January 30 2014 11:32 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On January 30 2014 11:16 nunez wrote:On January 30 2014 09:11 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On January 30 2014 08:00 nunez wrote:On January 29 2014 23:59 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On January 29 2014 23:16 nunez wrote:On January 29 2014 15:36 JonnyBNoHo wrote:
[quote]
Oh, but it's not just a modeled thing.
Linear jobs are empirically observed to exist. As are non-linear jobs.
Also, when the wage gap is calculated it's assumed that jobs are linear, so that if women work 80% of the hours, they *should* earn 80% of the pay and if they don't - there's a residual left over.
As you say, the world is non-linear, so that approach is wrong and this paper seeks to correct that. more precise: it tries to make a case for what is causing the non-linear dynamic. i think you will find that putting real world process into a linear framework is an attempt at modelling. however it's crude and even the simplest of process will only behave linearly under strict conditions (re: the resistor). so if you want attempt to establish this 'linear vs non-linear output wrt. % of full-time position' dichtonomy you will have to excercise a bit more rigour than stating it as fact. pointless excercise if the goal is to salvage the method used in the paper (re: previous post), but it will be interesting nonetheless... There's no relevance to anything you're saying though. You're complaint that there is no *real* linear is irrelevant. It doesn't change anything meaningful. If linear is wrong, than this paper is a huge step forward over the status quo. Edit: the point of the paper isn't how precisely it measures the linear vs non-linear dynamic... ah man, jonny, you have worn my patience thin by now. your posts have been a series of irrelevant or unintelligible one-liners stated as self-explanatory facts juxtaposed with questions whose answer is readily available in the quoted posts. all the while i have been constantly rephrasing myself in an attempt to make my argument comprehensible and struggling to pull your feet out of your mouth so you can produce a proper response to it. and you still have the feeblest of grasps on my gripe with the paper and the relevant parts of it. it is bumming me out to be honest. i find comfort in "not a modeled result, or theory - it's an observed fact" morphing into "empirically observed to exist" and now "You're complaint that there is no *real* linear is irrelevant [sic]". you might be getting less coherent, but at least your ignorance is getting less obnoxious. you thinking that the paper is huge step forward on account of "linear is wrong [sic]" when the model developed in the paper itself is linear (re: my first post) paints the picture. No, I still don't really understand your criticism. You wrote: the piece de resistance of the paper is the claim that: that nonliear pay with respect to hours worked is responsible for the majority of the resuidual differences observed in earnings by gender. i'll split the method used in the paper to give weight to this with the mathematical framework into three: A: the claim itself which implies B. B: a dichtonomy beteen 'linear' and 'non-linear' wage wrt what percentage of full-time you are working at. C: develop a mathematical framework within B that explains the existence of the nonlinear dynamic according to A. You may be losing me at C. The paper isn't about a mathematical framework arbitrarily constructed. It's based on real wage data. what is based on real wage data? 'The paper' or 'a mathematical framework'? The paper. show me how you inferred that i claimed it was not through the post you quoted. Eh? I'm not really inferring that you claimed it was not. I'm trying to figure out where you lost me in Part C: C: develop a mathematical framework within B that explains the existence of the nonlinear dynamic according to A.this is all sorts of wrong.
it doesn't show anything, it all follows from A. you can swap out the bolded part in the quote with whateverand modify the wording in the model developed in C to reflect it. You need to explain this part better. What's done in the paper is that wage data is analyzed and some jobs are found to be non-linear. That dynamic is then used to explain part of the gender gap residual (which as-is assumes linearity). Where does your criticism come in? When the data on a few jobs gets extrapolated across other jobs? eh? then why did you type it out in the first place? what dynamic? it should be fairly obvious what part my critiscism concerns, namely the chapter devloping the model. did you actually read the paper? this part is not mentioned in the blog.
I typed it out because I thought your criticism, as I understood it, only made sense if that were the case.
The dynamic of some jobs being non-linear.
Are you referring to the section "Micro-foundations of compensating differentials"?
And sorry but your English isn't perfect. Do you not agree with the paper's conclusions or just some of the math within it?
|
On January 30 2014 12:07 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On January 30 2014 11:58 nunez wrote:On January 30 2014 11:51 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On January 30 2014 11:36 nunez wrote:On January 30 2014 11:32 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On January 30 2014 11:16 nunez wrote:On January 30 2014 09:11 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On January 30 2014 08:00 nunez wrote:On January 29 2014 23:59 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On January 29 2014 23:16 nunez wrote:
[quote]
more precise: it tries to make a case for what is causing the non-linear dynamic.
i think you will find that putting real world process into a linear framework is an attempt at modelling. however it's crude and even the simplest of process will only behave linearly under strict conditions (re: the resistor).
so if you want attempt to establish this 'linear vs non-linear output wrt. % of full-time position' dichtonomy you will have to excercise a bit more rigour than stating it as fact.
pointless excercise if the goal is to salvage the method used in the paper (re: previous post), but it will be interesting nonetheless... There's no relevance to anything you're saying though. You're complaint that there is no *real* linear is irrelevant. It doesn't change anything meaningful. If linear is wrong, than this paper is a huge step forward over the status quo. Edit: the point of the paper isn't how precisely it measures the linear vs non-linear dynamic... ah man, jonny, you have worn my patience thin by now. your posts have been a series of irrelevant or unintelligible one-liners stated as self-explanatory facts juxtaposed with questions whose answer is readily available in the quoted posts. all the while i have been constantly rephrasing myself in an attempt to make my argument comprehensible and struggling to pull your feet out of your mouth so you can produce a proper response to it. and you still have the feeblest of grasps on my gripe with the paper and the relevant parts of it. it is bumming me out to be honest. i find comfort in "not a modeled result, or theory - it's an observed fact" morphing into "empirically observed to exist" and now "You're complaint that there is no *real* linear is irrelevant [sic]". you might be getting less coherent, but at least your ignorance is getting less obnoxious. you thinking that the paper is huge step forward on account of "linear is wrong [sic]" when the model developed in the paper itself is linear (re: my first post) paints the picture. No, I still don't really understand your criticism. You wrote: the piece de resistance of the paper is the claim that: that nonliear pay with respect to hours worked is responsible for the majority of the resuidual differences observed in earnings by gender. i'll split the method used in the paper to give weight to this with the mathematical framework into three: A: the claim itself which implies B. B: a dichtonomy beteen 'linear' and 'non-linear' wage wrt what percentage of full-time you are working at. C: develop a mathematical framework within B that explains the existence of the nonlinear dynamic according to A. You may be losing me at C. The paper isn't about a mathematical framework arbitrarily constructed. It's based on real wage data. what is based on real wage data? 'The paper' or 'a mathematical framework'? The paper. show me how you inferred that i claimed it was not through the post you quoted. Eh? I'm not really inferring that you claimed it was not. I'm trying to figure out where you lost me in Part C: C: develop a mathematical framework within B that explains the existence of the nonlinear dynamic according to A.this is all sorts of wrong.
it doesn't show anything, it all follows from A. you can swap out the bolded part in the quote with whateverand modify the wording in the model developed in C to reflect it. You need to explain this part better. What's done in the paper is that wage data is analyzed and some jobs are found to be non-linear. That dynamic is then used to explain part of the gender gap residual (which as-is assumes linearity). Where does your criticism come in? When the data on a few jobs gets extrapolated across other jobs? eh? then why did you type it out in the first place? what dynamic? it should be fairly obvious what part my critiscism concerns, namely the chapter devloping the model. did you actually read the paper? this part is not mentioned in the blog. I typed it out because I thought your criticism, as I understood it, only made sense if that were the case. The dynamic of some jobs being non-linear. Are you referring to the section "Micro-foundations of compensating differentials"? And sorry but your English isn't perfect. Do you not agree with the paper's conclusions or just some of the math within it?
you didn't read the paper?
what causes this dynamic?
|
On January 30 2014 12:22 nunez wrote:Show nested quote +On January 30 2014 12:07 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On January 30 2014 11:58 nunez wrote:On January 30 2014 11:51 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On January 30 2014 11:36 nunez wrote:On January 30 2014 11:32 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On January 30 2014 11:16 nunez wrote:On January 30 2014 09:11 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On January 30 2014 08:00 nunez wrote:On January 29 2014 23:59 JonnyBNoHo wrote:
[quote]
There's no relevance to anything you're saying though. You're complaint that there is no *real* linear is irrelevant. It doesn't change anything meaningful. If linear is wrong, than this paper is a huge step forward over the status quo.
Edit: the point of the paper isn't how precisely it measures the linear vs non-linear dynamic... ah man, jonny, you have worn my patience thin by now. your posts have been a series of irrelevant or unintelligible one-liners stated as self-explanatory facts juxtaposed with questions whose answer is readily available in the quoted posts. all the while i have been constantly rephrasing myself in an attempt to make my argument comprehensible and struggling to pull your feet out of your mouth so you can produce a proper response to it. and you still have the feeblest of grasps on my gripe with the paper and the relevant parts of it. it is bumming me out to be honest. i find comfort in "not a modeled result, or theory - it's an observed fact" morphing into "empirically observed to exist" and now "You're complaint that there is no *real* linear is irrelevant [sic]". you might be getting less coherent, but at least your ignorance is getting less obnoxious. you thinking that the paper is huge step forward on account of "linear is wrong [sic]" when the model developed in the paper itself is linear (re: my first post) paints the picture. No, I still don't really understand your criticism. You wrote: the piece de resistance of the paper is the claim that: that nonliear pay with respect to hours worked is responsible for the majority of the resuidual differences observed in earnings by gender. i'll split the method used in the paper to give weight to this with the mathematical framework into three: A: the claim itself which implies B. B: a dichtonomy beteen 'linear' and 'non-linear' wage wrt what percentage of full-time you are working at. C: develop a mathematical framework within B that explains the existence of the nonlinear dynamic according to A. You may be losing me at C. The paper isn't about a mathematical framework arbitrarily constructed. It's based on real wage data. what is based on real wage data? 'The paper' or 'a mathematical framework'? The paper. show me how you inferred that i claimed it was not through the post you quoted. Eh? I'm not really inferring that you claimed it was not. I'm trying to figure out where you lost me in Part C: C: develop a mathematical framework within B that explains the existence of the nonlinear dynamic according to A.this is all sorts of wrong.
it doesn't show anything, it all follows from A. you can swap out the bolded part in the quote with whateverand modify the wording in the model developed in C to reflect it. You need to explain this part better. What's done in the paper is that wage data is analyzed and some jobs are found to be non-linear. That dynamic is then used to explain part of the gender gap residual (which as-is assumes linearity). Where does your criticism come in? When the data on a few jobs gets extrapolated across other jobs? eh? then why did you type it out in the first place? what dynamic? it should be fairly obvious what part my critiscism concerns, namely the chapter devloping the model. did you actually read the paper? this part is not mentioned in the blog. I typed it out because I thought your criticism, as I understood it, only made sense if that were the case. The dynamic of some jobs being non-linear. Are you referring to the section "Micro-foundations of compensating differentials"? And sorry but your English isn't perfect. Do you not agree with the paper's conclusions or just some of the math within it? you didn't read the paper? are you fucking joking me jonny?
I read it. Did you? FFS nunez, I'm asking you to direct me to the part of the paper where your criticism lies. I still don't know wtf you've been rambling about. "it should be fairly obvious what part my criricism concerns" is not a real answer. You're being purposefully cryptic and it's getting damn tiring.
|
On January 30 2014 12:07 Introvert wrote:Show nested quote +On January 29 2014 19:31 Doublemint wrote:On January 29 2014 12:56 Introvert wrote:On January 29 2014 12:51 Mohdoo wrote:On January 29 2014 12:48 Introvert wrote:On January 29 2014 12:40 Mohdoo wrote:On January 29 2014 12:37 Introvert wrote:On January 29 2014 12:32 Mohdoo wrote:On January 29 2014 12:31 Introvert wrote:On January 29 2014 12:24 Roe wrote:
[quote]
like what, trying to save negotiations from congress' sabotage?
obama's always doing flowery language and then backing down to his conservative side I like how you refer to the House, in theory the closest branch to the people, as "sabotaging." When he was re-elected, so was the House. When he was re-elected, the Constitution was not also up for election. That doesn't GO up for election. So yes, when he acts outside the bounds of the law for expediency, it concerns me. How can you trust ANY politician with that kind of power? He's still far left. Just because he doesn't act to the astounding extent you apparently want him to doesn't mean he's not far left. What laws is Obama breaking? FYI, the Constitution IS law. So with that in mind... Rewriting Obamacare deadlines, trying to violate the Recess Appointment Clause, passing a bill with the individual mandate, etc. I could give you more, but this would be the 184674 they've been laid out. These are just the most recent. Also some of this stuff is nuanced, especially when it relates to more vague sections of the Constitution. So when the supreme court says something is acceptable, what further basis is there for something to be illegal? Because the Court's ruling doesn't make it correct? That should be obvious (hell, they can't even agree on most things). Besides, I don't recall the Court ruling on these deadline changes. (The appointment case is going to be decided in June). I would direct you earlier in the thread (at multiple points) where this was discussed. But if you'd like I suppose we could start down this path once again.... The law changed when the supreme court said so. You are describing what you wish was the case, not what happened. So then why not just abolish all other branches of the government? I KNOW the mandate is the law, but I'm saying it's in violation of the Constitution. Jefferson's fear of the Courts was well placed, I'm afraid. you don't seem to know what 'left' means. I mean American left. Maybe you should give the supreme court justices a lesson then. What you say is an opinion. It does not make it fact, hell it does not even make it relevant. If you want to change it try to get Republicans into power so they can get more conservative leaning judges into office. Or even better, work towards becoming a kickass lawyer/scholar in the field of law and get some major political backing/friends with power --> become a supreme court judge! Boom, suddenly what you say has meaning because the constitution gives these individuals power to decide what's constitutional and what is not. People are entitled to their own opinion, not their own facts. On January 29 2014 13:16 Introvert wrote:On January 29 2014 13:06 zlefin wrote:
I don't think your definition of "left" is remotely accurate introvert; in fact, im' certain of it. Yours simply does not conform to reality of the definitions. Don't conflate undemocratic actions with Leftist beliefs, as they do not conform to the Left anymore than they do to the Right or the middle. you mean the boogy man? So far I've only used "left" in a general sense... how can my "definition" be wrong when I haven't given one? If you are referring to Again, just because he doesn't declare himself dictator and rob money out of the wealthy's bank account doesn't make him a moderate. then I congratulate you on taking that statement as an exact representation of what I think the left is. That statement is merely where I think Progressive ideology leads, except they will use the law to make it legal theft, if you will. But I doubt most liberals have actually thought far enough through that. They think that you can start with a powerful government and then stop it at some arbitrary point. They're just naive, not totalitarian. lol. spoken like a true Randroid. I like Rand Paul, but I'm not a "Randroid." I don't hang on his every word, etc. I didn't even know he said something like that. (Also, I've had my views long before Rand came onto the scene.) Again, I could go over this Obamacare thing again, it's one of my first set of posts in this thread. I don't understand the fascination with judges speaking and THUS IT WAS SO. For example, the ACA case was decided 5-4. So clearly 5 or 4 of them are wrong! Hell, even within the majority there were stark differences! John Roberts used it to limit the Commerce Clause. Four other justices though the Commerce Clause WAS a justification. And they are all Ivy League educated! To call issues of that sort settled is absurd. The Court consists of 9 fallible, corruptible human beings. So please, defend the ACA with argument, don't just say "but the Court said!" Every time I've discussed the appropriate historical context, all its defenders do is just shout "majority says!" at me. Show nested quote +Progressives are anti-corruption, so yes. Not every progressive will be successful, but I think due to the nature of history we'll make progress eventually. Women got the right to vote, blacks became citizens and got the right to vote. People eventually realize some traditions are worth discarding and desire change.
Taxes aren't left/right, but of course they are political. Both the right and left could use taxes in favour of their agenda (left: basic/minimum income, right: consolidating or expanding the power of corporations or the government). You know he kept the great portion of the Bush tax cuts? ACA favours corporations. He's expanded drone strikes in other countries, spied on his own citizens, passed regulations that effectively do nothing. These make him the opposite of a leftist.
I referred you to EO count because you said obama is using more and more executive authority to prove he's a leftist, while clearly people who are the right-wing have used it more than him. Your point was countered successfully.
Why should someone be concerned if someone's got a pen and a phone? This is terrible fear mongering if that's what you're trying to accomplish. And no, I'm not a progressive/liberal. People need to stop labeling others by their political beliefs, it only serves to put them in a box and make it so the other person doesn't have to actually think issue by issue.
No I understand the left can be corrupt.
No, your point about EO was the number of them. (it wasn't really a point, it was just a mention that obama is doing more and more - a number - of EO).
The left is for the separation of powers, that's true, but I do not see how obama using a pen and a phone means he's dictator of the country, or that the constitution is burned up.
I'm not talking about relative left and right either, it's actually you who are doing that since your definition of both is relative to where you live or where we are discussing (in the US).
You said the left favours low taxes to expand government, I think that was a typo? When you say the left is the "party of the nanny state" you continue to show that you're trying again and again to force some convoluted definition of leftism on us. If anything the right would be the nanny state; as they are in favour of consolidation of power, monarchy, feudalism, and basically a general authoritarianism. Those all are usually in favour of high taxes. And as I said, either side could use high taxes to further their agenda.
Lastly I don't see how somehow the republicans are the only wall stopping Obama's liberal side. He has time and time again caved in and come out in favour of republican agendas. In other words he isn't a far left liberal who is simply being abated by congress. He's made many concessions, and if anything he's moved to the right and conservative simply because of being in power.
|
On January 30 2014 12:27 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On January 30 2014 12:22 nunez wrote:On January 30 2014 12:07 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On January 30 2014 11:58 nunez wrote:On January 30 2014 11:51 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On January 30 2014 11:36 nunez wrote:On January 30 2014 11:32 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On January 30 2014 11:16 nunez wrote:On January 30 2014 09:11 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On January 30 2014 08:00 nunez wrote:
[quote]
ah man, jonny, you have worn my patience thin by now.
your posts have been a series of irrelevant or unintelligible one-liners stated as self-explanatory facts juxtaposed with questions whose answer is readily available in the quoted posts.
all the while i have been constantly rephrasing myself in an attempt to make my argument comprehensible and struggling to pull your feet out of your mouth so you can produce a proper response to it. and you still have the feeblest of grasps on my gripe with the paper and the relevant parts of it.
it is bumming me out to be honest.
i find comfort in "not a modeled result, or theory - it's an observed fact" morphing into "empirically observed to exist" and now "You're complaint that there is no *real* linear is irrelevant [sic]". you might be getting less coherent, but at least your ignorance is getting less obnoxious.
you thinking that the paper is huge step forward on account of "linear is wrong[sic]" when the model developed in the paper itself is linear (re: my first post) paints the picture. No, I still don't really understand your criticism. You wrote: the piece de resistance of the paper is the claim that:
[quote]
i'll split the method used in the paper to give weight to this with the mathematical framework into three:
A: the claim itself which implies B.
B: a dichtonomy beteen 'linear' and 'non-linear' wage wrt what percentage of full-time you are working at.
C: develop a mathematical framework within B that explains the existence of the nonlinear dynamic according to A. You may be losing me at C. The paper isn't about a mathematical framework arbitrarily constructed. It's based on real wage data. what is based on real wage data? 'The paper' or 'a mathematical framework'? The paper. show me how you inferred that i claimed it was not through the post you quoted. Eh? I'm not really inferring that you claimed it was not. I'm trying to figure out where you lost me in Part C: C: develop a mathematical framework within B that explains the existence of the nonlinear dynamic according to A.this is all sorts of wrong.
it doesn't show anything, it all follows from A. you can swap out the bolded part in the quote with whateverand modify the wording in the model developed in C to reflect it. You need to explain this part better. What's done in the paper is that wage data is analyzed and some jobs are found to be non-linear. That dynamic is then used to explain part of the gender gap residual (which as-is assumes linearity). Where does your criticism come in? When the data on a few jobs gets extrapolated across other jobs? eh? then why did you type it out in the first place? what dynamic? it should be fairly obvious what part my critiscism concerns, namely the chapter devloping the model. did you actually read the paper? this part is not mentioned in the blog. I typed it out because I thought your criticism, as I understood it, only made sense if that were the case. The dynamic of some jobs being non-linear. Are you referring to the section "Micro-foundations of compensating differentials"? And sorry but your English isn't perfect. Do you not agree with the paper's conclusions or just some of the math within it? you didn't read the paper? are you fucking joking me jonny? I read it. Did you? FFS nunez, I'm asking you to direct me to the part of the paper where your criticism lies. I still don't know wtf you've been rambling about. "it should be fairly obvious what part my criricism concerns" is not a real answer. You're being purposefully cryptic and it's getting damn tiring.
hahaha, no you didn't. you're a real stinker jonny. it seems unlikely at least.
the model is developed in Framework to understand the nonlinear hour-wages relationship. this entire subsection is devoted to this, but none of it is mentioned in the blog (the section you mentioned lays out a lot of assumptions for it).
A sparse framework will demonstrate these points and develop them further.
Framework to understand the nonlinear hours-wages relationship
what is causing the non-linear dynamic according to the paper?
edit: "it should be fairly obvious what part my critiscism concerns, namely the chapter devloping the model. "
what exactly were you referring to when you mentioned extrapolation? the graph in the blog? or the one of the model?
|
On January 30 2014 10:07 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On January 30 2014 09:31 wei2coolman wrote:On January 30 2014 09:06 SnipedSoul wrote:
Just so you know, Obama is pretty right wing by all but American standards.
All his policies are pilfered from the Republicans of 20 - 30 years ago.
He just looks like he's on the left because everyone else in America is ridiculously far right.
One example: Abortion is legal in Canada. Our current conservative (by Canadian standards) government recently said that they aren't even going to open up the debate about abortion because it's legal and that's the way it's going to stay. I've always thought of obama as fairly moderate, despite the constant "far left wing" claims by the right. He was a rather liberal senator, so it was assumed that he would be a rather liberal president. He ended up being fairly moderate, though if that's because of his own preferences, Republicans holding him back or government inertia is an open, and possibly irrelevant, question.
I have heard about his senate voting record but he also wasn't a senator for very long so it was probably a fairly limited voting agenda that he put his name to in the first place and thus not fairly representative of his policy as a whole. I do not know if that is the case but that could also explain it.
|
On January 30 2014 12:30 nunez wrote:Show nested quote +On January 30 2014 12:27 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On January 30 2014 12:22 nunez wrote:On January 30 2014 12:07 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On January 30 2014 11:58 nunez wrote:On January 30 2014 11:51 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On January 30 2014 11:36 nunez wrote:On January 30 2014 11:32 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On January 30 2014 11:16 nunez wrote:On January 30 2014 09:11 JonnyBNoHo wrote:
[quote]
No, I still don't really understand your criticism. You wrote:
[quote]
You may be losing me at C. The paper isn't about a mathematical framework arbitrarily constructed. It's based on real wage data. what is based on real wage data? 'The paper' or 'a mathematical framework'? The paper. show me how you inferred that i claimed it was not through the post you quoted. Eh? I'm not really inferring that you claimed it was not. I'm trying to figure out where you lost me in Part C: C: develop a mathematical framework within B that explains the existence of the nonlinear dynamic according to A.this is all sorts of wrong.
it doesn't show anything, it all follows from A. you can swap out the bolded part in the quote with whateverand modify the wording in the model developed in C to reflect it. You need to explain this part better. What's done in the paper is that wage data is analyzed and some jobs are found to be non-linear. That dynamic is then used to explain part of the gender gap residual (which as-is assumes linearity). Where does your criticism come in? When the data on a few jobs gets extrapolated across other jobs? eh? then why did you type it out in the first place? what dynamic? it should be fairly obvious what part my critiscism concerns, namely the chapter devloping the model. did you actually read the paper? this part is not mentioned in the blog. I typed it out because I thought your criticism, as I understood it, only made sense if that were the case. The dynamic of some jobs being non-linear. Are you referring to the section "Micro-foundations of compensating differentials"? And sorry but your English isn't perfect. Do you not agree with the paper's conclusions or just some of the math within it? you didn't read the paper? are you fucking joking me jonny? I read it. Did you? FFS nunez, I'm asking you to direct me to the part of the paper where your criticism lies. I still don't know wtf you've been rambling about. "it should be fairly obvious what part my criricism concerns" is not a real answer. You're being purposefully cryptic and it's getting damn tiring. hahaha, no you didn't. you're a real stinker jonny. the model is developed in Framework to understand the nonlinear hour-wages relationship. this entire subsection is devoted to that, but none of it is mentioned in the blog.
So when I asked if you were talking about "Framework to understand the nonlinear hours-wages relationship" the answer was a simple yes?
And so you don't like that section? That's it?
Show nested quote +A sparse framework will demonstrate these points and develop them further.
Framework to understand the nonlinear hours-wages relationship what is causing the non-linear dynamic?
Read the paper...
|
I like Rand Paul, but I'm not a "Randroid." I don't hang on his every word, etc. I didn't even know he said something like that. (Also, I've had my views long before Rand came onto the scene.)
Again, I could go over this Obamacare thing again, it's one of my first set of posts in this thread.
I don't understand the fascination with judges speaking and THUS IT WAS SO. For example, the ACA case was decided 5-4. So clearly 5 or 4 of them are wrong! Hell, even within the majority there were stark differences! John Roberts used it to limit the Commerce Clause. Four other justices though the Commerce Clause WAS a justification. And they are all Ivy League educated! To call issues of that sort settled is absurd. The Court consists of 9 fallible, corruptible human beings. So please, defend the ACA with argument, don't just say "but the Court said!" Every time I've discussed the appropriate historical context, all its defenders do is just shout "majority says!" at me.
There is no "fascination"... you yourself said "FYI, the Constitution is the law..." when somebody asked you which specific law Obama did break. And the Constitution gives the Supreme Court the final say on how to interpret Federal Constitutional Law. It's not always deciding unaninmously, but in such critical cases there is the rule that out of the 9 justices 5 have agree and then it's decided for good - at least until someone challenges it again.
Though that would only make sense after a while since Justices in the Supreme Court tend to stay there for quite some time - and they won't disagree with themselves I would wager or even consider ruling on something that has been already decided.
You can't have it both ways, like the Constitution yet not be "fascinated" by the Judges that are explicitly there to watch over it...
A court room is very different from the political or public arena, though I will grant you that Justices too have beliefs and convictions and that also will influence their decisions - naturally.
|
|
|
|
|
|
![[image loading]](http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-YzbyHM4hylo/T-IoWAzN32I/AAAAAAAACKk/YwcnjjfPK0w/s640/cookie%2Bmonster%2B2.gif)
31900
3705
150
EPT
