|
|
On July 24 2012 04:17 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On July 24 2012 04:01 sam!zdat wrote:On July 24 2012 02:33 xDaunt wrote:On July 24 2012 02:28 aksfjh wrote:On July 24 2012 02:17 kwizach wrote:On July 24 2012 01:55 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On July 24 2012 01:43 kwizach wrote:On July 24 2012 01:38 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On July 24 2012 01:16 kwizach wrote:The politifact article that you cited does not really back up the claim that "discrimination [is] widely overplayed". It explains why the "77 cents per dollar earned" figure is problematic/wrong in how it's being used, but it does not provide a number that would indicate how far or close it is to the actual figure, all it does is say the "pay gap is much smaller", without providing sources, and relying on a few examples that range from a relatively small but still existing gap (95 cents per dollar earned) to a very important gap (58 cents per dollar earned). That there are entire professions for which the average wage of women is 42% below the average wage of men is extremely problematic, and the fact is that an existing wage difference is still problematic even for the professions for which the average wage of women is 5% below the average wage of men. Wage discrimination is therefore not "widely overplayed" - if anything, it is underplayed by those seeking to repeal legislation giving legal instruments to women to defend themselves. The article from politifact points out that the numbers being thrown around aren't adjusted for things like hours worked or length of tenure or ability. Basically the figures are NOT like for like. Not all 9th grade teachers get paid the same - for reasons beyond gender. Some teachers are part time, some full time. Some work in dangerous urban cities, other work in safe suburban communities. Pay can be different for many, many reasons. I read the article, what's your point? It is not discriminatory to pay someone less for cause. If a salesperson on commission brings in half the business then that sales person should get half the pay - regardless of gender. So your statements such as "That there are entire professions for which the average wage of women is 42% below the average wage of men is extremely problematic" are entirely crap. There may very well be NOTHING discriminatory going on. I know very well it is not discriminatory to pay someone less for cause (as in, a cause that would not be gender-related). What the article does is point out factors that make it harder to determine to what degree gender discrimination plays a role in wage differences. It does not say gender discrimination is not very common. In fact, the authors expressively wrote at the end of the article that "nothing in our analysis suggests that gender discrimination doesn’t exist. In fact, the experts we consulted agreed that no matter how much you adjust the models to equalize for outside factors, a difference in pay between men and women remains, and it’s one that can’t be explained away". In addition, if you had taken a look at the fact sheet from which the statistics used in the politifact article come from, you would have seen that women earn less than men in almost every single occupation, including the occupations that are most common for women. That this would be entirely explained for every single occupation by the outside factors aforementioned, especially in the cases where the wage difference is as high as 42%, is laughable. Gonna have to side with Kwizach on this one. While I'm sure there are traditional gender roles and situations that may disproportionately affect women (mainly involving kids), and thusly their career and pay opportunities, they probably play a much smaller role than what is being "deducted." Somebody who effectively takes off 1 hour a week more doesn't deserve to make 25% less*. *Totally pulled those numbers out of thin air as an example more than anything. There's more to it than that. Women cost more health insurance-wise and companies take a huge hit when a woman goes on maternity leave -- regardless of whether it's paid or unpaid. So? If we treated each other like human beings, and not like little surplus value factories, this would not be an issue. Human considerations should definitely factor into the equation, but companies can't be expected to simply ignore the bottom line.
What should go on the bottom line is the well-being and human flourishing of the people who are, de facto if not in nomine, feudal vassals to that company. This is the problem with limited liability and executive responsibility to shareholders.
edit: because the current order is set up so that the rulers never look upon the faces of the ruled, and that is a bad thing. (edit: c.f. Arendt _Origins of Totalitarianism_)
|
On July 24 2012 02:17 kwizach wrote:Show nested quote +On July 24 2012 01:55 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On July 24 2012 01:43 kwizach wrote:On July 24 2012 01:38 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On July 24 2012 01:16 kwizach wrote:On July 24 2012 00:39 1Eris1 wrote:On July 23 2012 16:58 kwizach wrote:On July 23 2012 12:28 xDaunt wrote:
As someone who has practiced employment discrimination law, I assure you that real gender discrimination is very infrequent. Sexual harassment still occurs quite a bit, but that is a different animal. Even if there were zero gender discrimination lawsuits, it would not mean that gender discrimination doesn't exist or isn't frequent. For example, the first study on the matter I found on google mentioned an effect dubbed "gender fatigue": "individuals tire of acting upon gender discrimination in spite of the fact that incidents of gender bias either occurred at one time within their organization or could occur again". On July 23 2012 12:39 1Eris1 wrote:On July 23 2012 12:30 frogrubdown wrote:On July 23 2012 12:17 1Eris1 wrote:
[quote]
Can you actually provide sources that there is rampant discrimination in the same specific jobs? As I said before, there is a little, but it's hardly what Democrats make it out to be, and it's fading with every passing year.
Most people don't understand that discrimination if entirely contrary to Capitalism nature. If you discriminate, you'll have worse workers and less overall profits, and that's just dumb. There's a reason most discrimination cases consist of managers with vendettas or similar; there's no great males-first conspiracy or anything like that, and if there were, they'd go out of business.
That's an (imperfect) argument against there being rampant conscious discrimination, but there's no good reason to assume that capitalism would automatically self-correct for the effects of implicit biases, which are rampant. I'm not saying discrimination doesn't happen, I'm saying it's widely overplayed and frequently missadressed. Especially with politicians and their laws. Any sources to back up that claim? Read my first post a few pages back. Politicians (mostly Democrats) love to use the 77 cents number as a statement of gross inequality, when I as already discussed, it's more like 95 cents. http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2012/jun/21/barack-obama/barack-obama-ad-says-women-are-paid-77-cents-dolla/http://democrats.senate.gov/2012/06/05/reid-democrats-stand-for-equality-for-every-working-woman-republicans-stand-for-obstructionism/ The politifact article that you cited does not really back up the claim that "discrimination [is] widely overplayed". It explains why the "77 cents per dollar earned" figure is problematic/wrong in how it's being used, but it does not provide a number that would indicate how far or close it is to the actual figure, all it does is say the "pay gap is much smaller", without providing sources, and relying on a few examples that range from a relatively small but still existing gap (95 cents per dollar earned) to a very important gap (58 cents per dollar earned). That there are entire professions for which the average wage of women is 42% below the average wage of men is extremely problematic, and the fact is that an existing wage difference is still problematic even for the professions for which the average wage of women is 5% below the average wage of men. Wage discrimination is therefore not "widely overplayed" - if anything, it is underplayed by those seeking to repeal legislation giving legal instruments to women to defend themselves. The article from politifact points out that the numbers being thrown around aren't adjusted for things like hours worked or length of tenure or ability. Basically the figures are NOT like for like. Not all 9th grade teachers get paid the same - for reasons beyond gender. Some teachers are part time, some full time. Some work in dangerous urban cities, other work in safe suburban communities. Pay can be different for many, many reasons. I read the article, what's your point? It is not discriminatory to pay someone less for cause. If a salesperson on commission brings in half the business then that sales person should get half the pay - regardless of gender. So your statements such as "That there are entire professions for which the average wage of women is 42% below the average wage of men is extremely problematic" are entirely crap. There may very well be NOTHING discriminatory going on. I know very well it is not discriminatory to pay someone less for cause (as in, a cause that would not be gender-related). What the article does is point out factors that make it harder to determine to what degree gender discrimination plays a role in wage differences. It does not say gender discrimination is not very common. In fact, the authors expressively wrote at the end of the article that "nothing in our analysis suggests that gender discrimination doesn’t exist. In fact, the experts we consulted agreed that no matter how much you adjust the models to equalize for outside factors, a difference in pay between men and women remains, and it’s one that can’t be explained away". In addition, if you had taken a look at the fact sheet from which the statistics used in the politifact article come from, you would have seen that women earn less than men in almost every single occupation, including the occupations that are most common for women. The idea that this would be entirely explained for every single occupation by the outside factors aforementioned, especially in the cases where the wage difference is as high as 42%, is laughable.
You're missing the point. Nowhere have I ever said there is no discrimination. What I'm saying is that democrat politicians are purposely using misleading statistics as an attempt to justify legislation and then labeling republicans as sexist when they oppose it. No republican is trying to repeal the 1963 act (except maybe Ron Paul) and its ridiculous to claim this is some sort of "war on women".
Now for abortion on the other hand...
|
On July 24 2012 03:48 MoreFaSho wrote:Show nested quote +On July 24 2012 03:31 xDaunt wrote:On July 24 2012 03:09 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On July 24 2012 02:26 paralleluniverse wrote:On July 24 2012 01:52 xDaunt wrote:Ruh, roh. Two-thirds of likely voters say the weak economy is Washington’s fault, and more blame President Obama than anybody else, according to a new poll for The Hill.
It found that 66 percent believe paltry job growth and slow economic recovery is the result of bad policy. Thirty-four percent say Obama is the most to blame, followed by 23 percent who say Congress is the culprit. Twenty percent point the finger at Wall Street, and 18 percent cite former President George W. Bush.
....
The poll, conducted for The Hill by Pulse Opinion Research, found 53 percent of voters say Obama has taken the wrong actions and has slowed the economy down. Forty-two percent said he has taken the right actions to revive the economy, while six percent said they were not sure.
Source. What exactly do they blame Obama for? For the GFC? He wasn't even in office at the time. For this I'd blame Wall Street and Reagan/Clinton/Bush for their deregulation of the financial industry, For the job losses, most of that happened around the time of his inauguration before he had any chance to react. For the slow recovery? Give me the chain of causes and effects that starts at "fiscal stimulus" and ends at "makes the economy worse".I blame Republicans for preventing Obama from doing more. The fiscal stimulus was huge and the recovery is very slow. Too much was blown on keeping people that vote Democrat happy. It didn't make the economy worse but we got very little bang for our buck. If nothing else, I think that Obama would be in much better shape had the stimulus package had done more for revitalizing and developing America's infrastructure than it did. Far too much of it constituted earmarks given to special interest groups. That term is so funny "special interest group". I fully support spending substantially more money on infrastructure, but an awful lot of the stimulus money was either to infrastructure or tax cuts. I could just as easily call the construction industry a special interest group and claim that too much went to special interest groups. BTW, here's a link to how the money was apportioned: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Recovery_and_Reinvestment_Act_of_2009#Provisions_of_the_ActHere's the breakdown by large category: Tax Incentives: 288 billion Health Care: 155.1 billion Education: 100 billion Aid to low income workers, unemployed and retirees (including job training): 82.2 billion Infrastructure Investment: 105.3 billion Energy efficiency and renewable energy research and investment: 27.2 billion Housing: 14.7 billion Scientific Research: 7.6 billion Other: 10.6 billion There are totally legitimate gripes about the stimulus bill, but your comment is uninformed. It's easy to frame every problem as an interest group problem, but it's not like you could easily divert 300 billion of that spending somewhere else and totally change the landscape of the stimulus. The stimulus is just a ghost that will always be the worst of all evils to some people.
Yes but there is more than $300B in total government stimulus. Government spending jumped by about 5% of GDP - that's ~ $700B / year since 2008. You can (and should) be able to do a lot with that kind of bucks.
|
On July 24 2012 04:26 sam!zdat wrote:Show nested quote +On July 24 2012 04:17 xDaunt wrote:On July 24 2012 04:01 sam!zdat wrote:On July 24 2012 02:33 xDaunt wrote:On July 24 2012 02:28 aksfjh wrote:On July 24 2012 02:17 kwizach wrote:On July 24 2012 01:55 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On July 24 2012 01:43 kwizach wrote:On July 24 2012 01:38 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On July 24 2012 01:16 kwizach wrote:
[quote]
The politifact article that you cited does not really back up the claim that "discrimination [is] widely overplayed". It explains why the "77 cents per dollar earned" figure is problematic/wrong in how it's being used, but it does not provide a number that would indicate how far or close it is to the actual figure, all it does is say the "pay gap is much smaller", without providing sources, and relying on a few examples that range from a relatively small but still existing gap (95 cents per dollar earned) to a very important gap (58 cents per dollar earned). That there are entire professions for which the average wage of women is 42% below the average wage of men is extremely problematic, and the fact is that an existing wage difference is still problematic even for the professions for which the average wage of women is 5% below the average wage of men. Wage discrimination is therefore not "widely overplayed" - if anything, it is underplayed by those seeking to repeal legislation giving legal instruments to women to defend themselves. The article from politifact points out that the numbers being thrown around aren't adjusted for things like hours worked or length of tenure or ability. Basically the figures are NOT like for like. Not all 9th grade teachers get paid the same - for reasons beyond gender. Some teachers are part time, some full time. Some work in dangerous urban cities, other work in safe suburban communities. Pay can be different for many, many reasons. I read the article, what's your point? It is not discriminatory to pay someone less for cause. If a salesperson on commission brings in half the business then that sales person should get half the pay - regardless of gender. So your statements such as "That there are entire professions for which the average wage of women is 42% below the average wage of men is extremely problematic" are entirely crap. There may very well be NOTHING discriminatory going on. I know very well it is not discriminatory to pay someone less for cause (as in, a cause that would not be gender-related). What the article does is point out factors that make it harder to determine to what degree gender discrimination plays a role in wage differences. It does not say gender discrimination is not very common. In fact, the authors expressively wrote at the end of the article that "nothing in our analysis suggests that gender discrimination doesn’t exist. In fact, the experts we consulted agreed that no matter how much you adjust the models to equalize for outside factors, a difference in pay between men and women remains, and it’s one that can’t be explained away". In addition, if you had taken a look at the fact sheet from which the statistics used in the politifact article come from, you would have seen that women earn less than men in almost every single occupation, including the occupations that are most common for women. That this would be entirely explained for every single occupation by the outside factors aforementioned, especially in the cases where the wage difference is as high as 42%, is laughable. Gonna have to side with Kwizach on this one. While I'm sure there are traditional gender roles and situations that may disproportionately affect women (mainly involving kids), and thusly their career and pay opportunities, they probably play a much smaller role than what is being "deducted." Somebody who effectively takes off 1 hour a week more doesn't deserve to make 25% less*. *Totally pulled those numbers out of thin air as an example more than anything. There's more to it than that. Women cost more health insurance-wise and companies take a huge hit when a woman goes on maternity leave -- regardless of whether it's paid or unpaid. So? If we treated each other like human beings, and not like little surplus value factories, this would not be an issue. Human considerations should definitely factor into the equation, but companies can't be expected to simply ignore the bottom line. What should go on the bottom line is the well-being and human flourishing of the people who are, de facto if not in nomine, feudal vassals to that company. This is the problem with limited liability and executive responsibility to shareholders.
Good companies and good managers understand that the well-being and happiness of their workers ultimately affects their bottom line. If you treat your employees like garbage, not only will you have trouble holding onto your employees long term, but word gets around that you treat your employees like garbage, which makes hiring quality replacement workers more difficult. This is particularly true in more specialized industries where the communities are relatively small.
|
On July 24 2012 04:32 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On July 24 2012 04:26 sam!zdat wrote:On July 24 2012 04:17 xDaunt wrote:On July 24 2012 04:01 sam!zdat wrote:On July 24 2012 02:33 xDaunt wrote:On July 24 2012 02:28 aksfjh wrote:On July 24 2012 02:17 kwizach wrote:On July 24 2012 01:55 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On July 24 2012 01:43 kwizach wrote:On July 24 2012 01:38 JonnyBNoHo wrote:
[quote]
The article from politifact points out that the numbers being thrown around aren't adjusted for things like hours worked or length of tenure or ability. Basically the figures are NOT like for like. Not all 9th grade teachers get paid the same - for reasons beyond gender. Some teachers are part time, some full time. Some work in dangerous urban cities, other work in safe suburban communities. Pay can be different for many, many reasons. I read the article, what's your point? It is not discriminatory to pay someone less for cause. If a salesperson on commission brings in half the business then that sales person should get half the pay - regardless of gender. So your statements such as "That there are entire professions for which the average wage of women is 42% below the average wage of men is extremely problematic" are entirely crap. There may very well be NOTHING discriminatory going on. I know very well it is not discriminatory to pay someone less for cause (as in, a cause that would not be gender-related). What the article does is point out factors that make it harder to determine to what degree gender discrimination plays a role in wage differences. It does not say gender discrimination is not very common. In fact, the authors expressively wrote at the end of the article that "nothing in our analysis suggests that gender discrimination doesn’t exist. In fact, the experts we consulted agreed that no matter how much you adjust the models to equalize for outside factors, a difference in pay between men and women remains, and it’s one that can’t be explained away". In addition, if you had taken a look at the fact sheet from which the statistics used in the politifact article come from, you would have seen that women earn less than men in almost every single occupation, including the occupations that are most common for women. That this would be entirely explained for every single occupation by the outside factors aforementioned, especially in the cases where the wage difference is as high as 42%, is laughable. Gonna have to side with Kwizach on this one. While I'm sure there are traditional gender roles and situations that may disproportionately affect women (mainly involving kids), and thusly their career and pay opportunities, they probably play a much smaller role than what is being "deducted." Somebody who effectively takes off 1 hour a week more doesn't deserve to make 25% less*. *Totally pulled those numbers out of thin air as an example more than anything. There's more to it than that. Women cost more health insurance-wise and companies take a huge hit when a woman goes on maternity leave -- regardless of whether it's paid or unpaid. So? If we treated each other like human beings, and not like little surplus value factories, this would not be an issue. Human considerations should definitely factor into the equation, but companies can't be expected to simply ignore the bottom line. What should go on the bottom line is the well-being and human flourishing of the people who are, de facto if not in nomine, feudal vassals to that company. This is the problem with limited liability and executive responsibility to shareholders. Good companies and good managers understand that the well-being and happiness of their workers ultimately affects their bottom line. If you treat your employees like garbage, not only will you have trouble holding onto your employees long term, but word gets around that you treat your employees like garbage, which makes hiring quality replacement workers more difficult. This is particularly true in more specialized industries where the communities are relatively small.
Yeah, it works for people who are already privileged
not so much for those whose jobs are under constant siege by the reserve army of the unemployed
|
On July 24 2012 04:30 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On July 24 2012 03:48 MoreFaSho wrote:On July 24 2012 03:31 xDaunt wrote:On July 24 2012 03:09 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On July 24 2012 02:26 paralleluniverse wrote:On July 24 2012 01:52 xDaunt wrote:Ruh, roh. Two-thirds of likely voters say the weak economy is Washington’s fault, and more blame President Obama than anybody else, according to a new poll for The Hill.
It found that 66 percent believe paltry job growth and slow economic recovery is the result of bad policy. Thirty-four percent say Obama is the most to blame, followed by 23 percent who say Congress is the culprit. Twenty percent point the finger at Wall Street, and 18 percent cite former President George W. Bush.
....
The poll, conducted for The Hill by Pulse Opinion Research, found 53 percent of voters say Obama has taken the wrong actions and has slowed the economy down. Forty-two percent said he has taken the right actions to revive the economy, while six percent said they were not sure.
Source. What exactly do they blame Obama for? For the GFC? He wasn't even in office at the time. For this I'd blame Wall Street and Reagan/Clinton/Bush for their deregulation of the financial industry, For the job losses, most of that happened around the time of his inauguration before he had any chance to react. For the slow recovery? Give me the chain of causes and effects that starts at "fiscal stimulus" and ends at "makes the economy worse".I blame Republicans for preventing Obama from doing more. The fiscal stimulus was huge and the recovery is very slow. Too much was blown on keeping people that vote Democrat happy. It didn't make the economy worse but we got very little bang for our buck. If nothing else, I think that Obama would be in much better shape had the stimulus package had done more for revitalizing and developing America's infrastructure than it did. Far too much of it constituted earmarks given to special interest groups. That term is so funny "special interest group". I fully support spending substantially more money on infrastructure, but an awful lot of the stimulus money was either to infrastructure or tax cuts. I could just as easily call the construction industry a special interest group and claim that too much went to special interest groups. BTW, here's a link to how the money was apportioned: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Recovery_and_Reinvestment_Act_of_2009#Provisions_of_the_ActHere's the breakdown by large category: Tax Incentives: 288 billion Health Care: 155.1 billion Education: 100 billion Aid to low income workers, unemployed and retirees (including job training): 82.2 billion Infrastructure Investment: 105.3 billion Energy efficiency and renewable energy research and investment: 27.2 billion Housing: 14.7 billion Scientific Research: 7.6 billion Other: 10.6 billion There are totally legitimate gripes about the stimulus bill, but your comment is uninformed. It's easy to frame every problem as an interest group problem, but it's not like you could easily divert 300 billion of that spending somewhere else and totally change the landscape of the stimulus. The stimulus is just a ghost that will always be the worst of all evils to some people. Yes but there is more than $300B in total government stimulus. Government spending jumped by about 5% of GDP - that's ~ $700B / year since 2008. You can (and should) be able to do a lot with that kind of bucks.
First of all, that 700B / year is just a bogus number, see here:
http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/spending_chart_2008_2012USb_12s1li111tcn_F0f
A large portion of that spending growth was on Welfare which makes sense since there was a recession and that's automatically triggered to increase:
http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/spending_chart_2006_2012USb_12s1li111tcn_40f
You make it sound like there were a lot of new policies that spent a ton of money implemented, but you can probably only name the ACA and ARRA and the ARRA was a one-time thing, it wasn't as if there was new spending that would be spent on an annual basis.
|
On July 24 2012 04:35 sam!zdat wrote:Show nested quote +On July 24 2012 04:32 xDaunt wrote:On July 24 2012 04:26 sam!zdat wrote:On July 24 2012 04:17 xDaunt wrote:On July 24 2012 04:01 sam!zdat wrote:On July 24 2012 02:33 xDaunt wrote:On July 24 2012 02:28 aksfjh wrote:On July 24 2012 02:17 kwizach wrote:On July 24 2012 01:55 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On July 24 2012 01:43 kwizach wrote:
[quote]
I read the article, what's your point? It is not discriminatory to pay someone less for cause. If a salesperson on commission brings in half the business then that sales person should get half the pay - regardless of gender. So your statements such as "That there are entire professions for which the average wage of women is 42% below the average wage of men is extremely problematic" are entirely crap. There may very well be NOTHING discriminatory going on. I know very well it is not discriminatory to pay someone less for cause (as in, a cause that would not be gender-related). What the article does is point out factors that make it harder to determine to what degree gender discrimination plays a role in wage differences. It does not say gender discrimination is not very common. In fact, the authors expressively wrote at the end of the article that "nothing in our analysis suggests that gender discrimination doesn’t exist. In fact, the experts we consulted agreed that no matter how much you adjust the models to equalize for outside factors, a difference in pay between men and women remains, and it’s one that can’t be explained away". In addition, if you had taken a look at the fact sheet from which the statistics used in the politifact article come from, you would have seen that women earn less than men in almost every single occupation, including the occupations that are most common for women. That this would be entirely explained for every single occupation by the outside factors aforementioned, especially in the cases where the wage difference is as high as 42%, is laughable. Gonna have to side with Kwizach on this one. While I'm sure there are traditional gender roles and situations that may disproportionately affect women (mainly involving kids), and thusly their career and pay opportunities, they probably play a much smaller role than what is being "deducted." Somebody who effectively takes off 1 hour a week more doesn't deserve to make 25% less*. *Totally pulled those numbers out of thin air as an example more than anything. There's more to it than that. Women cost more health insurance-wise and companies take a huge hit when a woman goes on maternity leave -- regardless of whether it's paid or unpaid. So? If we treated each other like human beings, and not like little surplus value factories, this would not be an issue. Human considerations should definitely factor into the equation, but companies can't be expected to simply ignore the bottom line. What should go on the bottom line is the well-being and human flourishing of the people who are, de facto if not in nomine, feudal vassals to that company. This is the problem with limited liability and executive responsibility to shareholders. Good companies and good managers understand that the well-being and happiness of their workers ultimately affects their bottom line. If you treat your employees like garbage, not only will you have trouble holding onto your employees long term, but word gets around that you treat your employees like garbage, which makes hiring quality replacement workers more difficult. This is particularly true in more specialized industries where the communities are relatively small. Yeah, it works for people who are already privilegednot so much for those whose jobs are under constant siege by the reserve army of the unemployed
I really, really hate that word. It completely glosses over all of the hard work, pain, and turmoil that people put into their careers. Instead, it has the connotation that people get to where they are through sheer serendipity.
|
On July 24 2012 04:57 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On July 24 2012 04:35 sam!zdat wrote:On July 24 2012 04:32 xDaunt wrote:On July 24 2012 04:26 sam!zdat wrote:On July 24 2012 04:17 xDaunt wrote:On July 24 2012 04:01 sam!zdat wrote:On July 24 2012 02:33 xDaunt wrote:On July 24 2012 02:28 aksfjh wrote:On July 24 2012 02:17 kwizach wrote:On July 24 2012 01:55 JonnyBNoHo wrote:
[quote]
It is not discriminatory to pay someone less for cause. If a salesperson on commission brings in half the business then that sales person should get half the pay - regardless of gender.
So your statements such as "That there are entire professions for which the average wage of women is 42% below the average wage of men is extremely problematic" are entirely crap. There may very well be NOTHING discriminatory going on. I know very well it is not discriminatory to pay someone less for cause (as in, a cause that would not be gender-related). What the article does is point out factors that make it harder to determine to what degree gender discrimination plays a role in wage differences. It does not say gender discrimination is not very common. In fact, the authors expressively wrote at the end of the article that "nothing in our analysis suggests that gender discrimination doesn’t exist. In fact, the experts we consulted agreed that no matter how much you adjust the models to equalize for outside factors, a difference in pay between men and women remains, and it’s one that can’t be explained away". In addition, if you had taken a look at the fact sheet from which the statistics used in the politifact article come from, you would have seen that women earn less than men in almost every single occupation, including the occupations that are most common for women. That this would be entirely explained for every single occupation by the outside factors aforementioned, especially in the cases where the wage difference is as high as 42%, is laughable. Gonna have to side with Kwizach on this one. While I'm sure there are traditional gender roles and situations that may disproportionately affect women (mainly involving kids), and thusly their career and pay opportunities, they probably play a much smaller role than what is being "deducted." Somebody who effectively takes off 1 hour a week more doesn't deserve to make 25% less*. *Totally pulled those numbers out of thin air as an example more than anything. There's more to it than that. Women cost more health insurance-wise and companies take a huge hit when a woman goes on maternity leave -- regardless of whether it's paid or unpaid. So? If we treated each other like human beings, and not like little surplus value factories, this would not be an issue. Human considerations should definitely factor into the equation, but companies can't be expected to simply ignore the bottom line. What should go on the bottom line is the well-being and human flourishing of the people who are, de facto if not in nomine, feudal vassals to that company. This is the problem with limited liability and executive responsibility to shareholders. Good companies and good managers understand that the well-being and happiness of their workers ultimately affects their bottom line. If you treat your employees like garbage, not only will you have trouble holding onto your employees long term, but word gets around that you treat your employees like garbage, which makes hiring quality replacement workers more difficult. This is particularly true in more specialized industries where the communities are relatively small. Yeah, it works for people who are already privilegednot so much for those whose jobs are under constant siege by the reserve army of the unemployed I really, really hate that word. It completely glosses over all of the hard work, pain, and turmoil that people put into their careers. Instead, it has the connotation that people get to where they are through sheer serendipity.
No, it doesn't. You don't understand what is meant by the term.
As a child of privilege myself, I feel it is important to acknowledge it for what it is. One can be both privileged and a hard worker, they are not mutually incompatible.
edit: in fact, it is often privilege which ENABLES one to have the social capital necessary to become a "hard worker"
edit again: you have some point, however, in that the term is often misused by vulgar populists to simply denounce the moral rectitude of higher social classes and render their social experience invalid. This is a travesty of the meaning of the term. I often cringe when it is used, myself
edit again: privilege is best understood as the capital (material and social) attained by the individual simply by being born. In this sense, the goal of civilization is to INCREASE everyone's privilege, not remove it
in other words: yes, you're right, the term is often meant in that way, but that's not how I mean it and that's not how it should be used
|
On July 24 2012 04:55 MoreFaSho wrote:Show nested quote +On July 24 2012 04:30 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On July 24 2012 03:48 MoreFaSho wrote:On July 24 2012 03:31 xDaunt wrote:On July 24 2012 03:09 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On July 24 2012 02:26 paralleluniverse wrote:On July 24 2012 01:52 xDaunt wrote:Ruh, roh. Two-thirds of likely voters say the weak economy is Washington’s fault, and more blame President Obama than anybody else, according to a new poll for The Hill.
It found that 66 percent believe paltry job growth and slow economic recovery is the result of bad policy. Thirty-four percent say Obama is the most to blame, followed by 23 percent who say Congress is the culprit. Twenty percent point the finger at Wall Street, and 18 percent cite former President George W. Bush.
....
The poll, conducted for The Hill by Pulse Opinion Research, found 53 percent of voters say Obama has taken the wrong actions and has slowed the economy down. Forty-two percent said he has taken the right actions to revive the economy, while six percent said they were not sure.
Source. What exactly do they blame Obama for? For the GFC? He wasn't even in office at the time. For this I'd blame Wall Street and Reagan/Clinton/Bush for their deregulation of the financial industry, For the job losses, most of that happened around the time of his inauguration before he had any chance to react. For the slow recovery? Give me the chain of causes and effects that starts at "fiscal stimulus" and ends at "makes the economy worse".I blame Republicans for preventing Obama from doing more. The fiscal stimulus was huge and the recovery is very slow. Too much was blown on keeping people that vote Democrat happy. It didn't make the economy worse but we got very little bang for our buck. If nothing else, I think that Obama would be in much better shape had the stimulus package had done more for revitalizing and developing America's infrastructure than it did. Far too much of it constituted earmarks given to special interest groups. That term is so funny "special interest group". I fully support spending substantially more money on infrastructure, but an awful lot of the stimulus money was either to infrastructure or tax cuts. I could just as easily call the construction industry a special interest group and claim that too much went to special interest groups. BTW, here's a link to how the money was apportioned: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Recovery_and_Reinvestment_Act_of_2009#Provisions_of_the_ActHere's the breakdown by large category: Tax Incentives: 288 billion Health Care: 155.1 billion Education: 100 billion Aid to low income workers, unemployed and retirees (including job training): 82.2 billion Infrastructure Investment: 105.3 billion Energy efficiency and renewable energy research and investment: 27.2 billion Housing: 14.7 billion Scientific Research: 7.6 billion Other: 10.6 billion There are totally legitimate gripes about the stimulus bill, but your comment is uninformed. It's easy to frame every problem as an interest group problem, but it's not like you could easily divert 300 billion of that spending somewhere else and totally change the landscape of the stimulus. The stimulus is just a ghost that will always be the worst of all evils to some people. Yes but there is more than $300B in total government stimulus. Government spending jumped by about 5% of GDP - that's ~ $700B / year since 2008. You can (and should) be able to do a lot with that kind of bucks. First of all, that 700B / year is just a bogus number, see here: http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/spending_chart_2008_2012USb_12s1li111tcn_F0fA large portion of that spending growth was on Welfare which makes sense since there was a recession and that's automatically triggered to increase: http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/spending_chart_2006_2012USb_12s1li111tcn_40fYou make it sound like there were a lot of new policies that spent a ton of money implemented, but you can probably only name the ACA and ARRA and the ARRA was a one-time thing, it wasn't as if there was new spending that would be spent on an annual basis.
The ARRA itself is a multi-year stimulus. It doesn't completely phase out until 2019. In total it will cost $831B according to wikipedia.
Yes some of my $700B number is welfare / unemployment. Just because it is an automatic stabilizer doesn't mean it isn't stimulus. Pre-recession ('07) total government spending in the US was 35% of GDP. It peaked in '09 at 42% of GDP (now 40%) - that's a huge jump - and on top of that were tax cuts.
|
On July 24 2012 04:57 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On July 24 2012 04:35 sam!zdat wrote:On July 24 2012 04:32 xDaunt wrote:On July 24 2012 04:26 sam!zdat wrote:On July 24 2012 04:17 xDaunt wrote:On July 24 2012 04:01 sam!zdat wrote:On July 24 2012 02:33 xDaunt wrote:On July 24 2012 02:28 aksfjh wrote:On July 24 2012 02:17 kwizach wrote:On July 24 2012 01:55 JonnyBNoHo wrote:
[quote]
It is not discriminatory to pay someone less for cause. If a salesperson on commission brings in half the business then that sales person should get half the pay - regardless of gender.
So your statements such as "That there are entire professions for which the average wage of women is 42% below the average wage of men is extremely problematic" are entirely crap. There may very well be NOTHING discriminatory going on. I know very well it is not discriminatory to pay someone less for cause (as in, a cause that would not be gender-related). What the article does is point out factors that make it harder to determine to what degree gender discrimination plays a role in wage differences. It does not say gender discrimination is not very common. In fact, the authors expressively wrote at the end of the article that "nothing in our analysis suggests that gender discrimination doesn’t exist. In fact, the experts we consulted agreed that no matter how much you adjust the models to equalize for outside factors, a difference in pay between men and women remains, and it’s one that can’t be explained away". In addition, if you had taken a look at the fact sheet from which the statistics used in the politifact article come from, you would have seen that women earn less than men in almost every single occupation, including the occupations that are most common for women. That this would be entirely explained for every single occupation by the outside factors aforementioned, especially in the cases where the wage difference is as high as 42%, is laughable. Gonna have to side with Kwizach on this one. While I'm sure there are traditional gender roles and situations that may disproportionately affect women (mainly involving kids), and thusly their career and pay opportunities, they probably play a much smaller role than what is being "deducted." Somebody who effectively takes off 1 hour a week more doesn't deserve to make 25% less*. *Totally pulled those numbers out of thin air as an example more than anything. There's more to it than that. Women cost more health insurance-wise and companies take a huge hit when a woman goes on maternity leave -- regardless of whether it's paid or unpaid. So? If we treated each other like human beings, and not like little surplus value factories, this would not be an issue. Human considerations should definitely factor into the equation, but companies can't be expected to simply ignore the bottom line. What should go on the bottom line is the well-being and human flourishing of the people who are, de facto if not in nomine, feudal vassals to that company. This is the problem with limited liability and executive responsibility to shareholders. Good companies and good managers understand that the well-being and happiness of their workers ultimately affects their bottom line. If you treat your employees like garbage, not only will you have trouble holding onto your employees long term, but word gets around that you treat your employees like garbage, which makes hiring quality replacement workers more difficult. This is particularly true in more specialized industries where the communities are relatively small. Yeah, it works for people who are already privilegednot so much for those whose jobs are under constant siege by the reserve army of the unemployed I really, really hate that word. It completely glosses over all of the hard work, pain, and turmoil that people put into their careers. Instead, it has the connotation that people get to where they are through sheer serendipity.
Yes, better instead of gloss over the even greater amount of hard work, pain, and turmoil of those who are not afforded the opportunity to succeed. It's like Christ said: "Accursed are the poor, and never shall they enter into the kingdom of Heaven, as their poverty is their damnation in the eyes of the Lord."
|
On July 24 2012 05:38 HunterX11 wrote:Show nested quote +On July 24 2012 04:57 xDaunt wrote:On July 24 2012 04:35 sam!zdat wrote:On July 24 2012 04:32 xDaunt wrote:On July 24 2012 04:26 sam!zdat wrote:On July 24 2012 04:17 xDaunt wrote:On July 24 2012 04:01 sam!zdat wrote:On July 24 2012 02:33 xDaunt wrote:On July 24 2012 02:28 aksfjh wrote:On July 24 2012 02:17 kwizach wrote:[quote] I know very well it is not discriminatory to pay someone less for cause (as in, a cause that would not be gender-related). What the article does is point out factors that make it harder to determine to what degree gender discrimination plays a role in wage differences. It does not say gender discrimination is not very common. In fact, the authors expressively wrote at the end of the article that "nothing in our analysis suggests that gender discrimination doesn’t exist. In fact, the experts we consulted agreed that no matter how much you adjust the models to equalize for outside factors, a difference in pay between men and women remains, and it’s one that can’t be explained away". In addition, if you had taken a look at the fact sheet from which the statistics used in the politifact article come from, you would have seen that women earn less than men in almost every single occupation, including the occupations that are most common for women. That this would be entirely explained for every single occupation by the outside factors aforementioned, especially in the cases where the wage difference is as high as 42%, is laughable. Gonna have to side with Kwizach on this one. While I'm sure there are traditional gender roles and situations that may disproportionately affect women (mainly involving kids), and thusly their career and pay opportunities, they probably play a much smaller role than what is being "deducted." Somebody who effectively takes off 1 hour a week more doesn't deserve to make 25% less*. *Totally pulled those numbers out of thin air as an example more than anything. There's more to it than that. Women cost more health insurance-wise and companies take a huge hit when a woman goes on maternity leave -- regardless of whether it's paid or unpaid. So? If we treated each other like human beings, and not like little surplus value factories, this would not be an issue. Human considerations should definitely factor into the equation, but companies can't be expected to simply ignore the bottom line. What should go on the bottom line is the well-being and human flourishing of the people who are, de facto if not in nomine, feudal vassals to that company. This is the problem with limited liability and executive responsibility to shareholders. Good companies and good managers understand that the well-being and happiness of their workers ultimately affects their bottom line. If you treat your employees like garbage, not only will you have trouble holding onto your employees long term, but word gets around that you treat your employees like garbage, which makes hiring quality replacement workers more difficult. This is particularly true in more specialized industries where the communities are relatively small. Yeah, it works for people who are already privilegednot so much for those whose jobs are under constant siege by the reserve army of the unemployed I really, really hate that word. It completely glosses over all of the hard work, pain, and turmoil that people put into their careers. Instead, it has the connotation that people get to where they are through sheer serendipity. Yes, better instead of gloss over the even greater amount of hard work, pain, and turmoil of those who are not afforded the opportunity to succeed. It's like Christ said: "Accursed are the poor, and never shall they enter into the kingdom of Heaven, as their poverty is their damnation in the eyes of the Lord."
Yeah, 'cuz so many poor are not afforded opportunities in America. There is zero income mobility in your world, is that it?
|
On July 24 2012 05:52 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On July 24 2012 05:38 HunterX11 wrote:On July 24 2012 04:57 xDaunt wrote:On July 24 2012 04:35 sam!zdat wrote:On July 24 2012 04:32 xDaunt wrote:On July 24 2012 04:26 sam!zdat wrote:On July 24 2012 04:17 xDaunt wrote:On July 24 2012 04:01 sam!zdat wrote:On July 24 2012 02:33 xDaunt wrote:On July 24 2012 02:28 aksfjh wrote:
[quote]
Gonna have to side with Kwizach on this one. While I'm sure there are traditional gender roles and situations that may disproportionately affect women (mainly involving kids), and thusly their career and pay opportunities, they probably play a much smaller role than what is being "deducted." Somebody who effectively takes off 1 hour a week more doesn't deserve to make 25% less*.
*Totally pulled those numbers out of thin air as an example more than anything. There's more to it than that. Women cost more health insurance-wise and companies take a huge hit when a woman goes on maternity leave -- regardless of whether it's paid or unpaid. So? If we treated each other like human beings, and not like little surplus value factories, this would not be an issue. Human considerations should definitely factor into the equation, but companies can't be expected to simply ignore the bottom line. What should go on the bottom line is the well-being and human flourishing of the people who are, de facto if not in nomine, feudal vassals to that company. This is the problem with limited liability and executive responsibility to shareholders. Good companies and good managers understand that the well-being and happiness of their workers ultimately affects their bottom line. If you treat your employees like garbage, not only will you have trouble holding onto your employees long term, but word gets around that you treat your employees like garbage, which makes hiring quality replacement workers more difficult. This is particularly true in more specialized industries where the communities are relatively small. Yeah, it works for people who are already privilegednot so much for those whose jobs are under constant siege by the reserve army of the unemployed I really, really hate that word. It completely glosses over all of the hard work, pain, and turmoil that people put into their careers. Instead, it has the connotation that people get to where they are through sheer serendipity. Yes, better instead of gloss over the even greater amount of hard work, pain, and turmoil of those who are not afforded the opportunity to succeed. It's like Christ said: "Accursed are the poor, and never shall they enter into the kingdom of Heaven, as their poverty is their damnation in the eyes of the Lord." Yeah, 'cuz so many poor are not afforded opportunities in America. There is zero income mobility in your world, is that it?
Why would you even dignify him with a response?
|
On July 24 2012 05:52 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On July 24 2012 05:38 HunterX11 wrote:On July 24 2012 04:57 xDaunt wrote:On July 24 2012 04:35 sam!zdat wrote:On July 24 2012 04:32 xDaunt wrote:On July 24 2012 04:26 sam!zdat wrote:On July 24 2012 04:17 xDaunt wrote:On July 24 2012 04:01 sam!zdat wrote:On July 24 2012 02:33 xDaunt wrote:On July 24 2012 02:28 aksfjh wrote:
[quote]
Gonna have to side with Kwizach on this one. While I'm sure there are traditional gender roles and situations that may disproportionately affect women (mainly involving kids), and thusly their career and pay opportunities, they probably play a much smaller role than what is being "deducted." Somebody who effectively takes off 1 hour a week more doesn't deserve to make 25% less*.
*Totally pulled those numbers out of thin air as an example more than anything. There's more to it than that. Women cost more health insurance-wise and companies take a huge hit when a woman goes on maternity leave -- regardless of whether it's paid or unpaid. So? If we treated each other like human beings, and not like little surplus value factories, this would not be an issue. Human considerations should definitely factor into the equation, but companies can't be expected to simply ignore the bottom line. What should go on the bottom line is the well-being and human flourishing of the people who are, de facto if not in nomine, feudal vassals to that company. This is the problem with limited liability and executive responsibility to shareholders. Good companies and good managers understand that the well-being and happiness of their workers ultimately affects their bottom line. If you treat your employees like garbage, not only will you have trouble holding onto your employees long term, but word gets around that you treat your employees like garbage, which makes hiring quality replacement workers more difficult. This is particularly true in more specialized industries where the communities are relatively small. Yeah, it works for people who are already privilegednot so much for those whose jobs are under constant siege by the reserve army of the unemployed I really, really hate that word. It completely glosses over all of the hard work, pain, and turmoil that people put into their careers. Instead, it has the connotation that people get to where they are through sheer serendipity. Yes, better instead of gloss over the even greater amount of hard work, pain, and turmoil of those who are not afforded the opportunity to succeed. It's like Christ said: "Accursed are the poor, and never shall they enter into the kingdom of Heaven, as their poverty is their damnation in the eyes of the Lord." Yeah, 'cuz so many poor are not afforded opportunities in America.
Well... yeah...
There is zero income mobility in your world, is that it?
aside from a few "man who" arguments, what is there?
edit: often "opportunities" for income mobility are immoral or contrary to class interests in aggregate...
edit: would be interested to hear some arguments for the healthiness of the "american dream"
|
On July 24 2012 06:09 sam!zdat wrote:Show nested quote +On July 24 2012 05:52 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On July 24 2012 05:38 HunterX11 wrote:On July 24 2012 04:57 xDaunt wrote:On July 24 2012 04:35 sam!zdat wrote:On July 24 2012 04:32 xDaunt wrote:On July 24 2012 04:26 sam!zdat wrote:On July 24 2012 04:17 xDaunt wrote:On July 24 2012 04:01 sam!zdat wrote:On July 24 2012 02:33 xDaunt wrote:
[quote]
There's more to it than that. Women cost more health insurance-wise and companies take a huge hit when a woman goes on maternity leave -- regardless of whether it's paid or unpaid.
So? If we treated each other like human beings, and not like little surplus value factories, this would not be an issue. Human considerations should definitely factor into the equation, but companies can't be expected to simply ignore the bottom line. What should go on the bottom line is the well-being and human flourishing of the people who are, de facto if not in nomine, feudal vassals to that company. This is the problem with limited liability and executive responsibility to shareholders. Good companies and good managers understand that the well-being and happiness of their workers ultimately affects their bottom line. If you treat your employees like garbage, not only will you have trouble holding onto your employees long term, but word gets around that you treat your employees like garbage, which makes hiring quality replacement workers more difficult. This is particularly true in more specialized industries where the communities are relatively small. Yeah, it works for people who are already privilegednot so much for those whose jobs are under constant siege by the reserve army of the unemployed I really, really hate that word. It completely glosses over all of the hard work, pain, and turmoil that people put into their careers. Instead, it has the connotation that people get to where they are through sheer serendipity. Yes, better instead of gloss over the even greater amount of hard work, pain, and turmoil of those who are not afforded the opportunity to succeed. It's like Christ said: "Accursed are the poor, and never shall they enter into the kingdom of Heaven, as their poverty is their damnation in the eyes of the Lord." Yeah, 'cuz so many poor are not afforded opportunities in America. Well... yeah... aside from a few "man who" arguments, what is there? edit: often "opportunities" for income mobility are immoral or contrary to class interests in aggregate...
Try looking up studies on income mobility. Do the poor have it harder? Sure, but this isn't the grinding permanent poverty of the 3rd world.
Here's a nice graphic from the NY Times.
Here's a more up to date study..
I have no idea what you are talking about with your edit...
|
Seeing as both of those things are pre 2008, doesn't seem all that relevant now, does it?
edit: when capitalism comes into crisis, pointing to things before the crisis as evidence of how there's not a crisis is a bit strange
edit: but we're out of an area in which I can speak authoritatively here so I'm not going to try to argue in these terms... which is not the same as an acceptance of whatever conclusions you have drawn
I'm interested in your point of view, however, so I welcome whatever analysis you might offer. Just linking to a study doesn't help me that much, though, any more than it would help you if I just linked to a pdf of some critical theoretical text
|
On July 24 2012 05:26 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On July 24 2012 04:55 MoreFaSho wrote:On July 24 2012 04:30 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On July 24 2012 03:48 MoreFaSho wrote:On July 24 2012 03:31 xDaunt wrote:On July 24 2012 03:09 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On July 24 2012 02:26 paralleluniverse wrote:On July 24 2012 01:52 xDaunt wrote:Ruh, roh. Two-thirds of likely voters say the weak economy is Washington’s fault, and more blame President Obama than anybody else, according to a new poll for The Hill.
It found that 66 percent believe paltry job growth and slow economic recovery is the result of bad policy. Thirty-four percent say Obama is the most to blame, followed by 23 percent who say Congress is the culprit. Twenty percent point the finger at Wall Street, and 18 percent cite former President George W. Bush.
....
The poll, conducted for The Hill by Pulse Opinion Research, found 53 percent of voters say Obama has taken the wrong actions and has slowed the economy down. Forty-two percent said he has taken the right actions to revive the economy, while six percent said they were not sure.
Source. What exactly do they blame Obama for? For the GFC? He wasn't even in office at the time. For this I'd blame Wall Street and Reagan/Clinton/Bush for their deregulation of the financial industry, For the job losses, most of that happened around the time of his inauguration before he had any chance to react. For the slow recovery? Give me the chain of causes and effects that starts at "fiscal stimulus" and ends at "makes the economy worse".I blame Republicans for preventing Obama from doing more. The fiscal stimulus was huge and the recovery is very slow. Too much was blown on keeping people that vote Democrat happy. It didn't make the economy worse but we got very little bang for our buck. If nothing else, I think that Obama would be in much better shape had the stimulus package had done more for revitalizing and developing America's infrastructure than it did. Far too much of it constituted earmarks given to special interest groups. That term is so funny "special interest group". I fully support spending substantially more money on infrastructure, but an awful lot of the stimulus money was either to infrastructure or tax cuts. I could just as easily call the construction industry a special interest group and claim that too much went to special interest groups. BTW, here's a link to how the money was apportioned: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Recovery_and_Reinvestment_Act_of_2009#Provisions_of_the_ActHere's the breakdown by large category: Tax Incentives: 288 billion Health Care: 155.1 billion Education: 100 billion Aid to low income workers, unemployed and retirees (including job training): 82.2 billion Infrastructure Investment: 105.3 billion Energy efficiency and renewable energy research and investment: 27.2 billion Housing: 14.7 billion Scientific Research: 7.6 billion Other: 10.6 billion There are totally legitimate gripes about the stimulus bill, but your comment is uninformed. It's easy to frame every problem as an interest group problem, but it's not like you could easily divert 300 billion of that spending somewhere else and totally change the landscape of the stimulus. The stimulus is just a ghost that will always be the worst of all evils to some people. Yes but there is more than $300B in total government stimulus. Government spending jumped by about 5% of GDP - that's ~ $700B / year since 2008. You can (and should) be able to do a lot with that kind of bucks. First of all, that 700B / year is just a bogus number, see here: http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/spending_chart_2008_2012USb_12s1li111tcn_F0fA large portion of that spending growth was on Welfare which makes sense since there was a recession and that's automatically triggered to increase: http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/spending_chart_2006_2012USb_12s1li111tcn_40fYou make it sound like there were a lot of new policies that spent a ton of money implemented, but you can probably only name the ACA and ARRA and the ARRA was a one-time thing, it wasn't as if there was new spending that would be spent on an annual basis. The ARRA itself is a multi-year stimulus. It doesn't completely phase out until 2019. In total it will cost $831B according to wikipedia. Yes some of my $700B number is welfare / unemployment. Just because it is an automatic stabilizer doesn't mean it isn't stimulus. Pre-recession ('07) total government spending in the US was 35% of GDP. It peaked in '09 at 42% of GDP (now 40%) - that's a huge jump - and on top of that were tax cuts.
Don't forget that there was a huge drop in nominal GDP and potential GDP. It accounts for at least 2% of that "increase" iirc.
|
On July 24 2012 06:18 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On July 24 2012 06:09 sam!zdat wrote:On July 24 2012 05:52 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On July 24 2012 05:38 HunterX11 wrote:On July 24 2012 04:57 xDaunt wrote:On July 24 2012 04:35 sam!zdat wrote:On July 24 2012 04:32 xDaunt wrote:On July 24 2012 04:26 sam!zdat wrote:On July 24 2012 04:17 xDaunt wrote:On July 24 2012 04:01 sam!zdat wrote:
[quote]
So?
If we treated each other like human beings, and not like little surplus value factories, this would not be an issue. Human considerations should definitely factor into the equation, but companies can't be expected to simply ignore the bottom line. What should go on the bottom line is the well-being and human flourishing of the people who are, de facto if not in nomine, feudal vassals to that company. This is the problem with limited liability and executive responsibility to shareholders. Good companies and good managers understand that the well-being and happiness of their workers ultimately affects their bottom line. If you treat your employees like garbage, not only will you have trouble holding onto your employees long term, but word gets around that you treat your employees like garbage, which makes hiring quality replacement workers more difficult. This is particularly true in more specialized industries where the communities are relatively small. Yeah, it works for people who are already privilegednot so much for those whose jobs are under constant siege by the reserve army of the unemployed I really, really hate that word. It completely glosses over all of the hard work, pain, and turmoil that people put into their careers. Instead, it has the connotation that people get to where they are through sheer serendipity. Yes, better instead of gloss over the even greater amount of hard work, pain, and turmoil of those who are not afforded the opportunity to succeed. It's like Christ said: "Accursed are the poor, and never shall they enter into the kingdom of Heaven, as their poverty is their damnation in the eyes of the Lord." Yeah, 'cuz so many poor are not afforded opportunities in America. Well... yeah...
There is zero income mobility in your world, is that it?
aside from a few "man who" arguments, what is there? edit: often "opportunities" for income mobility are immoral or contrary to class interests in aggregate... Try looking up studies on income mobility. Do the poor have it harder? Sure, but this isn't the grinding permanent poverty of the 3rd world. Here's a nice graphic from the NY Times. Here's a more up to date study.. I have no idea what you are talking about with your edit...
Erm. America and UK lags behind other first world countries (including Canada and Norway) in terms of social mobility. It's supposed to be the American Dream, not the Canadian Dream. Comparing to third world countries is just setting the bar incredibly low.
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/05/us/harder-for-americans-to-rise-from-lower-rungs.html?_r=1&sq=mobility&st=cse&scp=1&pagewanted=all
|
On July 24 2012 05:52 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On July 24 2012 05:38 HunterX11 wrote:On July 24 2012 04:57 xDaunt wrote:On July 24 2012 04:35 sam!zdat wrote:On July 24 2012 04:32 xDaunt wrote:On July 24 2012 04:26 sam!zdat wrote:On July 24 2012 04:17 xDaunt wrote:On July 24 2012 04:01 sam!zdat wrote:On July 24 2012 02:33 xDaunt wrote:On July 24 2012 02:28 aksfjh wrote:
[quote]
Gonna have to side with Kwizach on this one. While I'm sure there are traditional gender roles and situations that may disproportionately affect women (mainly involving kids), and thusly their career and pay opportunities, they probably play a much smaller role than what is being "deducted." Somebody who effectively takes off 1 hour a week more doesn't deserve to make 25% less*.
*Totally pulled those numbers out of thin air as an example more than anything. There's more to it than that. Women cost more health insurance-wise and companies take a huge hit when a woman goes on maternity leave -- regardless of whether it's paid or unpaid. So? If we treated each other like human beings, and not like little surplus value factories, this would not be an issue. Human considerations should definitely factor into the equation, but companies can't be expected to simply ignore the bottom line. What should go on the bottom line is the well-being and human flourishing of the people who are, de facto if not in nomine, feudal vassals to that company. This is the problem with limited liability and executive responsibility to shareholders. Good companies and good managers understand that the well-being and happiness of their workers ultimately affects their bottom line. If you treat your employees like garbage, not only will you have trouble holding onto your employees long term, but word gets around that you treat your employees like garbage, which makes hiring quality replacement workers more difficult. This is particularly true in more specialized industries where the communities are relatively small. Yeah, it works for people who are already privilegednot so much for those whose jobs are under constant siege by the reserve army of the unemployed I really, really hate that word. It completely glosses over all of the hard work, pain, and turmoil that people put into their careers. Instead, it has the connotation that people get to where they are through sheer serendipity. Yes, better instead of gloss over the even greater amount of hard work, pain, and turmoil of those who are not afforded the opportunity to succeed. It's like Christ said: "Accursed are the poor, and never shall they enter into the kingdom of Heaven, as their poverty is their damnation in the eyes of the Lord." Yeah, 'cuz so many poor are not afforded opportunities in America. There is zero income mobility in your world, is that it?
There are plenty of people not afforeded opportunities in America. There certainly is social mobility, but not nearly enough, and too much of it is downward. This recession for example has disproportionately wiped out gains made by African-Americans over the last several decades, which is especially bad since it can be harder to get a job as a black person with a clean record than as a white ex-con, and considering on top of that how minorities and the poor are disproportionate sent to prison.
|
On July 24 2012 06:18 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On July 24 2012 06:09 sam!zdat wrote:On July 24 2012 05:52 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On July 24 2012 05:38 HunterX11 wrote:On July 24 2012 04:57 xDaunt wrote:On July 24 2012 04:35 sam!zdat wrote:On July 24 2012 04:32 xDaunt wrote:On July 24 2012 04:26 sam!zdat wrote:On July 24 2012 04:17 xDaunt wrote:On July 24 2012 04:01 sam!zdat wrote:
[quote]
So?
If we treated each other like human beings, and not like little surplus value factories, this would not be an issue. Human considerations should definitely factor into the equation, but companies can't be expected to simply ignore the bottom line. What should go on the bottom line is the well-being and human flourishing of the people who are, de facto if not in nomine, feudal vassals to that company. This is the problem with limited liability and executive responsibility to shareholders. Good companies and good managers understand that the well-being and happiness of their workers ultimately affects their bottom line. If you treat your employees like garbage, not only will you have trouble holding onto your employees long term, but word gets around that you treat your employees like garbage, which makes hiring quality replacement workers more difficult. This is particularly true in more specialized industries where the communities are relatively small. Yeah, it works for people who are already privilegednot so much for those whose jobs are under constant siege by the reserve army of the unemployed I really, really hate that word. It completely glosses over all of the hard work, pain, and turmoil that people put into their careers. Instead, it has the connotation that people get to where they are through sheer serendipity. Yes, better instead of gloss over the even greater amount of hard work, pain, and turmoil of those who are not afforded the opportunity to succeed. It's like Christ said: "Accursed are the poor, and never shall they enter into the kingdom of Heaven, as their poverty is their damnation in the eyes of the Lord." Yeah, 'cuz so many poor are not afforded opportunities in America. Well... yeah...
There is zero income mobility in your world, is that it?
aside from a few "man who" arguments, what is there? edit: often "opportunities" for income mobility are immoral or contrary to class interests in aggregate... Try looking up studies on income mobility. Do the poor have it harder? Sure, but this isn't the grinding permanent poverty of the 3rd world. Here's a nice graphic from the NY Times. Here's a more up to date study.. I have no idea what you are talking about with your edit...
Just to throw this out there, I'm pretty sure income mobility in the U.S. is quite low compared to most other developed countries. I don't have the figures off the top of my head, but I remember from an econ class learning that only a few countries beat it out for having low social mobility, namely countries with legacies of aristocracy (e.g. the U.K). Mainland Europe, Scandinavian countries, and Canada all had considerably higher income mobility, *I think*.
Again, just remembering stuff from class years ago.
Edit: at an airport, about to board, but here's a nice quote from wikipedia, of all places, on U.S. income mobility:
"Children previously from lower-income families had only a 1% chance of having an income that ranks in the top 5%.[4] On the other hand, the children of wealthy families have a 22% chance of reaching the top 5%"
and
"The United States had about 1/3 the ratio of mobility of Denmark and less than half that of Canada, Finland and Norway.[1] France, Germany, Sweden, also had higher mobility, with only the United Kingdom being less mobile"
1% compared to 22% is a pretty huge difference. Mobility still occurs, but 1 in 100 is a lot different than than 1 in 4.5.
|
In regards to social mobility, you have to put it a little bit into historical context. The gap between mature and emerging countries has been shrinking dramatically over the last 20 years and I think it's making some emerging markets look better than they are and mature markets look worse than they are.
For instance, Finland's education system is held up as a model today but it's worth pointing out that they had one of the worst systems in the 80s when they reformed their schools. They have a generation that is simply reaping the benefits of an improved education (and Nokia) today, which makes their mobility look very good. But the real test is whether they can maintain their mobility with the next generation that already grows up in a rich country. Probably not. Similarly, you have an entire generation of East Germans who have gotten a boost from re-integration and make the country look much better off than it does. It won't last.
Part of the reason why mobility is so low in the US and UK is because they're already rich, well-educated countries, so the current generation that grows up with so few people knowing real poverty have very little room to move.
That's not to say the US and UK don't have social problems or that the poor have exactly the same opportunities as the rich in this country. Rising inequality is a very serious problem in these countries. I just think you need to put things in more perspective before you declare the US is a feudal state and Canada is an oh-so-wonderfully-equal country.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
