EPTUS Politics Mega-thread - Page 832
| Forum Index > Closed |
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. | ||
|
TheFish7
United States2824 Posts
| ||
|
Roe
Canada6002 Posts
On January 31 2014 02:59 Introvert wrote: You said Ignoring the fact that everyone who uses the word "conservatives" knows they aren't for higher taxes... In the US, "conservative" and "right-wing," are almost entirely synonymous things (or at least are used interchangeably). The difference is that "right wing" is usually the derogatory form. You could make the status quo argument on the social issues front, but broadly speaking Conservative does NOT mean status quo in America. You are simply displaying your ignorance of the language used in the US. quote 1: i said right-wing, didn't say conservative. next: I'm not ignorant of the language used in the US. I KNOW people use the wrong terms, I'm trying to educate them about more consistent and valid semantics. Language is very important, it shapes the way we think about the world. It would be better to have logical semantics than ones we use for political/partisan and pejorative purposes. | ||
|
nunez
Norway4003 Posts
On January 30 2014 13:17 JonnyBNoHo wrote: No, it's the reverse. The framework is based off the research. Linear jobs pay linearly. The example given is a pharmacist - pharmacists are easily interchangeable - there is little benefit from having them work long hours and so there is little pay premium for working long hours. Non-linear jobs pay non-linearly. An example given is lawyer - you can't easily swap out a lawyer. Personal interactions matter, etc. and so there is a large pay premium for working long hours. That forms the basis for the framework. It's also observed that the non-linear professions generally have bigger gender gaps. That's where the idea that much of the residual gender gap comes from ignoring the non-linear pay dynamic. it's the reverse? i am saying that the framework just restates the assumptions, thus it doesn't give weigth to anything, and you can't conclude anything from it, hence the conclusions made from it are bunk. you have attempted to establish the dichtonomy. lets ignore its shortcomings (almost... making "points" about something does not equal doing research). but you still haven't managed to pin point what notion (a conception of or belief about something) the article claims is causing the non-linear dynamic for all jobs. this is the wording used in the article, yet you think you can shoot stuff with it on account of it being real data and observed fact. bang bang johnny. imagine if you actually managed to pin-point it and establish a faulty framework around it. how this would strengthen your assumptions? or allow you to draw conclusions from it? also you fail to realize that the framework does not demonstrate that if you work twice as long you will get payed less than twice as much (like you have stated several times you think it is), but that: 2 jonnys flipping burgers in a 20%-position for 5 bucks an hour, earn less combined than another jonny flipping burgers in a 40%-poisition for 6 bucks an hour. that is really mind blowing insight, from this harvard professor of economics. | ||
|
Introvert
United States4773 Posts
On January 31 2014 07:39 Roe wrote: quote 1: i said right-wing, didn't say conservative. next: I'm not ignorant of the language used in the US. I KNOW people use the wrong terms, I'm trying to educate them about more consistent and valid semantics. Language is very important, it shapes the way we think about the world. It would be better to have logical semantics than ones we use for political/partisan and pejorative purposes. I'm simply trying to inform you on current usage, since you seem intent on using much older definitions: 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. This is a generally false statement in America today. I'm not going change all the definitions that I use here from now on because you prefer the ones from some older time. I would LOVE if the word "liberal" once again had its classical meaning, but it won't. So I'm not going to sit here and try to change it, you have to go with it. Like I said, it's interesting you would rather go back and forth on particular words (which started as a tangent) and ignore the more pressing issue, the potential violation of SOP and the consolidation of power. Right wing just means that they sit on the right side of the chamber Only if you take it in the most literal sense. That's not helpful because there are only so many people actually sitting in chambers  let's get back to the more pressing issues. As long as everyone knows what everyone else means by a term (and not what it meant 200 years ago) then we can get back to more important things. We can quibble over language at some other time. | ||
|
WhiteDog
France8650 Posts
On January 31 2014 08:13 nunez wrote: it's the reverse? i am saying that the framework just restates the assumptions, thus it doesn't give weigth to anything, and you can't conclude anything from it, hence the conclusions made from it are bunk. you have attempted to establish the dichtonomy. lets ignore its shortcomings (almost... making "points" about something does not equal doing research). but you still haven't managed to pin point what notion (a conception of or belief about something. the article claims is causing the non-linear dynamic for all jobs. this is the wording used in the article, yet you think you can shoot stuff with it on account of it being real data and observed fact. bang bang johnny. imagine if you actually managed to pin-point it and establish a faulty framework around it. how this would strengthen your assumptions? or allow you to draw conclusions from it? also you fail to realize that the framework does not demonstrate that if you work twice as long you will get payed less than twice as much (like you have stated several times you think it is), but that: 2 jonnys flipping burgers in a 20%-position for 5 bucks an hour, earn less combined than another jonny flipping burgers in a 40%-poisition for 6 bucks an hour. that is really mind blowing insight, from this harvard professor of economics. It's a common occurence in social science. Mathematics are not taken seriously, but added in just because they offer some kind of legitimacy. | ||
|
nunez
Norway4003 Posts
| ||
|
corumjhaelen
France6884 Posts
Or more exactly Lagrange multipliers... | ||
|
Roe
Canada6002 Posts
| ||
|
Introvert
United States4773 Posts
On January 31 2014 08:43 Roe wrote: So you agree that technically I'm correct? But pragmatically I will agree that you are correct I agree that you would be correct if we were discussing the world sometime in the 18th or 19th century. Today? No. Your statement about the right is simply wrong. And since, when we discuss conservatives and the right in this thread we are talking about them today, you are in fact still wrong. It's all about context, and you're not using the same context that everyone else is. So "technically correct" doesn't really mean anything, since there is no "right" definition independent of the time frame and context being used. | ||
|
JonnyBNoHo
United States6277 Posts
On January 31 2014 08:13 nunez wrote: it's the reverse? i am saying that the framework just restates the assumptions, thus it doesn't give weigth to anything, and you can't conclude anything from it, hence the conclusions made from it are bunk. The conclusions aren't drawn from the framework. The framework is a generic model of the paper's findings. The paper represents research on job and pay data that shows that some jobs have greater pay elasticity with regard to hours worked. The conclusions come from the data, not the framework. you have attempted to establish the dichtonomy. lets ignore its shortcomings (almost... making "points" about something does not equal doing research). but you still haven't managed to pin point what notion (a conception of or belief about something) the article claims is causing the non-linear dynamic for all jobs. this is the wording used in the article, yet you think you can shoot stuff with it on account of it being real data and observed fact. bang bang johnny. It doesn't need to fully understand why some jobs are non-linear. There's more work to be done there, sure, but that doesn't take away from what is there... and there is quite a bit there if you bother to look at it. imagine if you actually managed to pin-point it and establish a faulty framework around it. how this would strengthen your assumptions? or allow you to draw conclusions from it? See the above. You're hyper obsessing over the framework, but the framework isn't that important. also you fail to realize that the framework does not demonstrate that if you work twice as long you will get payed less than twice as much (like you have stated several times you think it is), but that: 2 jonnys flipping burgers in a 20%-position for 5 bucks an hour, earn less combined than another jonny flipping burgers in a 40%-poisition for 6 bucks an hour. that is really mind blowing insight, from this harvard professor of economics. I stated that working double the hours will get you more than double the pay. I don't know why you think I have that backwards... you're two jonnys example is exactly what I've been saying. Lost in translation maybe? Again, stop obsessing over the framework. The real work is in the data analysis. Some jobs really do pay more non-linearly than others. Are you sure you understand econ? You don't always get nice clean data and nice clean notions and conclusions. | ||
|
Roe
Canada6002 Posts
On January 31 2014 08:51 Introvert wrote: I agree that you would be correct if we were discussing the world sometime in the 18th or 19th century. Today? No. Your statement about the right is simply wrong. And since, when we discuss conservatives and the right in this thread we are talking about them today, you are in fact still wrong. It's all about context, and you're not using the same context that everyone else is. So "technically correct" doesn't really mean anything, since there is no "right" definition independent of the time frame and context being used. Don't you get tired of just saying I'm wrong since some americans say one thing yet the correct semantic and the rest of the world (not to mention wikipedia) is different? I already gave you definitions that are independent of time frame and context! Those are correct. It's just incorrect in america on the streets. Your semantics would lead to gross inconsistencies and are ignorant of etymology, not to mention history. | ||
|
Nyxisto
Germany6287 Posts
| ||
|
nunez
Norway4003 Posts
if you re-read my post about conclusions i object to you will clearly see i say conclusions drawn from the framework... i am 'obsessing' over the framework, it was the point of my posts... but i readily admitted that: the paper or essay is largely unchanged if you strip away this particular idiocy, you will still find it agreeable my two jonnys example (knock on wood) is not what you have been saying. you are conflating the two because you didn't understand the framework. your interpretation is wrong, it's not doing double hours, it's doing double hours in a better paid job. there is no non-linearity involved. if you are simply doing double hours then framework is linear. or maybe i am misreading (your posts)? i don't know economics. | ||
|
Introvert
United States4773 Posts
On January 31 2014 10:00 Roe wrote: Don't you get tired of just saying I'm wrong since some americans say one thing yet the correct semantic and the rest of the world (not to mention wikipedia) is different? I already gave you definitions that are independent of time frame and context! Those are correct. It's just incorrect in america on the streets. Your semantics would lead to gross inconsistencies and are ignorant of etymology, not to mention history. This is the US politics thread, therefore, I am going to use words with the meaning that they have in the current American political discussion. Words change, so to say anyone is "correct" outside of their realm of activity is pointless. Every politically astute person in America today knows what someone means they say they are a "conservative." I'm not going to change that, and just in this ONE thread, because you insist that we aren't using it the same way everyone else is. I'm saying that definitions change, or they mean different things in different contexts. For instance, "conservative" means something entirely unrelated to politics in physics. There are no sacred words. Their history certainly is not malleable (it meant what it meant in 1800) but there is nothing "wrong" with today's definition, nor is one country obliged to change their vocabulary to suit everyone else. I could just as well argue that since the USA is the world super power, every other country should adopt our terminology. The only inconsistency here is you using the word differently than everyone else. You are the confused one, if we go by numbers. Edit: look at this way. We are currently making history. These definitions are becoming a part of the word's etymology. In 100 years it will be just as much a part of the word's history as the meaning was in 1800. This is what happens with language. How many other words would you request we change? Can we get back to the other topics? Guys can't we simply agree on not calling Obama a socialist any more and put the semantics debate to rest? Socialism means socializing the means of production, which he isn't doing. Who said he was? | ||
|
JonnyBNoHo
United States6277 Posts
On January 31 2014 10:21 nunez wrote: from the get-go i have stated clearly my gripe was with the framework, and that you can't draw any conclusions from it, that it does not have any explanatory power. any conclusions drawn will just be echo of what is the stated preconceived notion (as the paper calls it, you keep calling it research) for what is causing the dynamic. if you re-read my post about conclusions i object to you will clearly see i say conclusions drawn from the framework... i am 'obsessing' over the framework, it was the point of my posts... but i readily admitted that: my two jonnys example (knock on wood) is not what you have been saying. you are conflating the two because you didn't understand the framework. your interpretation is wrong, it's not doing double hours, it's doing double hours in a better paid job. there is no non-linearity involved. if you are simply doing double hours then framework is linear. or maybe i am misreading (your posts)? i don't know economics. Some positions pay in a linear fashion, some in a non-linear fashion. That point should be indisputable since it comes from the data itself. The framework then attempts to describe how that data plays out in the job market and it works like this: For the same job (non-linear), Work 10 hrs at $10/hr and earn $100. Work 20 hrs at $12/hr and earn $240. -or- Again for the same job (linear), Work 10 hrs at $11/hr and earn $110. Work 20 hrs at $11/hr and earn $220. If you want to work 20hrs you'll prefer the non-linear position. If you want to only work 10hrs you'll prefer the linear position. Or, depending on how you swap the numbers around, you may want the non-linear position even though you only want to work 10hrs. Edit 2: The framework in the paper ins't meant to be exact in any way. It's there to describe the general dynamic at play. "A sparse framework will demonstrate these points and develop them further." It's not the math used to draw conclusions. It's a mathematical representation of an aspect of labor market dynamics. Additionally, and rather separate from the framework, the paper describes what a linear and non-linear position looks like using the examples of MBA and JD for non-linear and pharmacist for linear. In addition to that, the paper explores how the existence of both linear and non-linear positions plays a role in the gender gap. You do not need to buy the framework for this part of the paper to have validity. Edit: positions that pay non-linearly have bigger gender gaps. | ||
|
nunez
Norway4003 Posts
the framework demonstrates the preconceived notion of what is causing the dynamic, not data playing out. and it's not the same job, it is two different jobs (might be same occupation). it is not X hrs, it is % of full-time employment or metric concerning which hours are worked. which not how many... | ||
|
JonnyBNoHo
United States6277 Posts
On January 31 2014 11:48 nunez wrote: all positions in the framework pay in linear fashion, there is no non-linear dynamic in it (this is why it is so ridiculous, besides just restating the assumption)... It doesn't matter. We're not computing anything with it. You just need to understand the general dynamic. That's it. the framework demonstrates the preconceived notion of what is causing the dynamic, not data playing out. and it's not the same job, it is two different jobs (might be same occupation). yeah... so? it is not X hrs, it is % of full-time employment or metric concerning which hours are worked. which not how many... Eh? X hrs or % of full time employment is basically the same thing. Again, this is a general thing. Nitpicking the math doesn't change anything. | ||
|
hunts
United States2113 Posts
| ||
|
nunez
Norway4003 Posts
On January 31 2014 11:58 JonnyBNoHo wrote: It doesn't matter. We're not computing anything with it. You just need to understand the general dynamic. That's it. yeah... so? Eh? X hrs or % of full time employment is basically the same thing. Again, this is a general thing. Nitpicking the math doesn't change anything. if by general dynamic you mean the specific dynamic resulting from the preconceived notion. then yes... but the dynamic in the framework is linear, so it's not explained. if it was non-linear it would still not be explanatory, just a restatement. "you're dead wrong", "yeah... so?"... ok, let me explain it through this framework so you understand the general dynamic: assume that if you are jonny then you are dead wrong, if you're not jonny then not much. define f(x):={ "you're dead wrong" if x = jonny; "not much" else } let x_j:=jonny. f(x_j). if it was the same job, the person would be paid the same... the point is if you are only able to hold a 20% job instead of 40% you will have a job with lower wage. i think you are being overly basic to hide your previous misunderstanding. it is stated clearly in the paper... that would be the only reason to change what it says into things it does not say so it coincides with your previous statements... that or you are still not getting it... | ||
|
JonnyBNoHo
United States6277 Posts
On January 31 2014 12:51 nunez wrote: if by general dynamic you mean the specific dynamic resulting from the preconceived notion. then yes... but the dynamic in the framework is linear, so it's not explained. if it was non-linear it would still not be explanatory, just a restatement. By general dynamic, I mean that it's just a narrative device. It isn't meant to be a real thing, it's just an illustration of something that happens. "you're dead wrong", "yeah... so?"... Yes, that's the same thing that I've been saying. ok, let me explain it through this framework so you understand the general dynamic: assume that if you are jonny then you are dead wrong, if you're not jonny then not much. define f(x):={ "you're dead wrong" if x = jonny; "not much" else } let x_j:=jonny. f(x_j). if it was the same job, the person would be paid the same... the point is if you are only able to hold a 20% job instead of 40% you will have a job with lower wage. i think you are being overly basic to hide your previous misunderstanding. it is stated clearly in the paper... that would be the only reason to change what it says into things it does not say so it coincides with your previous statements... that or you are still not getting it... It's stated in the paper the same as I'm saying it... So are we done here? You're only complaint is that math that isn't supposed to be taken seriously, and isn't very important to the paper, isn't up to your standards? | ||
| ||
