|
|
Blazinghand
United States25552 Posts
Budmandude, stating one of the legs is a "constant and therefore not relevant" isn't exactly a fair point. The leg is still there. The fact of the matter is, the effectiveness of the roads, police, schools, etc all vary QUITE a bit. I know that in the area I live, the state has stopped paying for highway repairs due to budgetary issues. There are terrible potholes and driving to work every day is a pain. One of my friends had his car wheel damaged due to a new pothole, and had to spend hundreds of dollars to repair it.
The transportation budgets are getting cut because tax raises are unpopular, and the state legislature spends a lot of money on useless stuff.
The school budgets are getting cut for the same reason-- I have friends who couldn't take accelerated courses in high school, and had shitty teachers cause very few good teachers are willing to work for 40 grand a year when with a bachelor's degree you could make much more.
Police and Firefighting budgets vary a lot from year to year, from city to city. ask anyone.
You say it's a constant, but I think... I think you're just wrong. Maybe you live in a wealthy area where they always maintain the roads well, or in a poor area where the roads are shitty all the time, and have never seen anywhere else, but I can assure you that government inputs vary quite a bit from year to year, and from location to location.
|
On July 26 2012 02:18 Budmandude wrote:Show nested quote +On July 26 2012 01:48 DoubleReed wrote:
Pffff, who builds a stool with three legs? Sounds like commie talk to me. Someone give this poster a medal for being so witty and contributing so much to this thread! ------------------------------------ Wow this is amazing, you guys missed my point entirely. Infrastructure is constant for all people in the United States, therefor it has no impact on the success rate of businesses in the United States (which is what we are talking about by the way). If it had such a large impact, then why doesn't every business succeed? Every business owner (and citizen with an IQ higher than 50) knows that roads are important, and that everyone pays for them, but it's a constant and therefore not relevant when it comes to talking about successful businesses in the united states, so why draw attention to it when talking about businesses succeeding? I've never seen anyone, business owner or conservative, arguing against the government keeping up roads, bridges, fire, and police so why bother bringing it up other than to just pat yourself on the back for a business you didn't have any part in building or making successful? (remember, they paid for it as well) Additionally, what lead to the infrastructure being built? Oh, that's right, business and trade! Which existed first: the mining town in Nevada, or the railroad that went past it? The government owes everything to business, not the other way around. By the way, roads were dirt before the Model-T, the automotive industry is the reason that the Department of Transportation is so successful, so why aren't we talking about that?! Also, now people are seriously arguing that luck is the make-or-break in whether a business succeeds or not? If that's the case why doesn't everyone just roll the dice to see if they can be the next millionaire? They don't, because that's not the largest contributor; the market research, business plan, accounting, employee selection, location, smart inventory, and risk and brutal amounts of work that are the real major contributors. Finally, you missed the most important part of my post, but I guess that's my fault for putting it at the bottom. So here we go, I'm not putting it at the bottom again! (and adding clarification in brackets) Show nested quote +On July 26 2012 01:17 Budmandude wrote:
In this speech he listed constants (society, infrastructure) as if they were the variables. This leads to a perception of an attack on small business [no matter what was intended], and perception is reality. This line is to make sure the quote isn't at the bottom of my post tl;dr: Stop being lazy in a discussion thread and read my post.
More to the point, even if one were to concede that Obama is not against individual achievement, then the only explanation for Obama's comments is thatObama is implying that republicans/conservatives are against government-provided infrastructure, which is a ludicrous strawman argument.
|
On July 26 2012 02:18 Budmandude wrote:Show nested quote +On July 26 2012 01:48 DoubleReed wrote:
Pffff, who builds a stool with three legs? Sounds like commie talk to me. Someone give this poster a medal for being so witty and contributing so much to this thread! ------------------------------------ Wow this is amazing, you guys missed my point entirely. Infrastructure is constant for all people in the United States, therefor it has no impact on the success rate of businesses in the United States (which is what we are talking about by the way). If it had such a large impact, then why doesn't every business succeed? Every business owner (and citizen with an IQ higher than 50) knows that roads are important, and that everyone pays for them, but it's a constant and therefore not relevant when it comes to talking about successful businesses in the united states, so why draw attention to it when talking about businesses succeeding? I've never seen anyone, business owner or conservative, arguing against the government keeping up roads, bridges, fire, and police so why bother bringing it up other than to just pat yourself on the back for a business you didn't have any part in building or making successful? (remember, they paid for it as well) Additionally, what lead to the infrastructure being built? Oh, that's right, business and trade! Which existed first: the mining town in Nevada, or the railroad that went past it? The government owes everything to business, not the other way around. By the way, roads were dirt before the Model-T, the automotive industry is the reason that the Department of Transportation is so successful, so why aren't we talking about that?! Also, now people are seriously arguing that luck is the make-or-break in whether a business succeeds or not? If that's the case why doesn't everyone just roll the dice to see if they can be the next millionaire? They don't, because that's not the largest contributor; the market research, business plan, accounting, employee selection, location, smart inventory, and risk and brutal amounts of work that are the real major contributors. Finally, you missed the most important part of my post, but I guess that's my fault for putting it at the bottom. So here we go, I'm not putting it at the bottom again! (and adding clarification in brackets) Show nested quote +On July 26 2012 01:17 Budmandude wrote:
In this speech he listed constants (society, infrastructure) as if they were the variables. This leads to a perception of an attack on small business [no matter what was intended], and perception is reality. This line is to make sure the quote isn't at the bottom of my post tl;dr: Stop being lazy in a discussion thread and read my post.
Except many Republicans are all too willing to sacrifice these things to "balance budgets" while giving tax breaks to people who insist their success is theirs alone.
|
On July 26 2012 02:18 Budmandude wrote:Show nested quote +On July 26 2012 01:48 DoubleReed wrote:
Pffff, who builds a stool with three legs? Sounds like commie talk to me. Someone give this poster a medal for being so witty and contributing so much to this thread! ------------------------------------ Wow this is amazing, you guys missed my point entirely. Infrastructure is constant for all people in the United States
Right out of the gate you start off with a gross generalization that ignores the very concepts of institutional racism and gender discrimination, not to mention the obvious issues via class/race distribution in geography. Case in point, if I'm fortunate enough to be born in Reston, VA, I have access to the best public school system in the country. However, if I'm born in the Hamtramck neighborhood of Detroit, MI, I have to pay a considerable amount of money to afford the closest viable private school, which is still sub-par nationally, while the local public schools have more drop-outs than graduates. Additionally, have you ever wondered why practically every major corporation has an office in Delaware? Oh yeah, it happens to deal exclusively with the imbalance brought on as a result of state by state difference in tax code. So no, your decision to exclude discussion of infrastructure via its ubiquity is patently lacking in logic and good sense. I can only assume that that is why everyone ignored your "most important" point, as it is uninformed. Attempting to justify a reliance on a very particular brand of individualism is one thing, but to then insist that our country is in some sort of "uniform" state of equality/access is flat out disingenuous and a smack in the face of everyone who still fights for a better system. It all just seems like a bunch of highly advantaged people doing their damndest to avoid anyone else realizing how privileged they are.
|
On July 26 2012 02:28 aksfjh wrote:Show nested quote +On July 26 2012 02:18 Budmandude wrote:On July 26 2012 01:48 DoubleReed wrote:
Pffff, who builds a stool with three legs? Sounds like commie talk to me. Someone give this poster a medal for being so witty and contributing so much to this thread! ------------------------------------ Wow this is amazing, you guys missed my point entirely. Infrastructure is constant for all people in the United States, therefor it has no impact on the success rate of businesses in the United States (which is what we are talking about by the way). If it had such a large impact, then why doesn't every business succeed? Every business owner (and citizen with an IQ higher than 50) knows that roads are important, and that everyone pays for them, but it's a constant and therefore not relevant when it comes to talking about successful businesses in the united states, so why draw attention to it when talking about businesses succeeding? I've never seen anyone, business owner or conservative, arguing against the government keeping up roads, bridges, fire, and police so why bother bringing it up other than to just pat yourself on the back for a business you didn't have any part in building or making successful? (remember, they paid for it as well) Additionally, what lead to the infrastructure being built? Oh, that's right, business and trade! Which existed first: the mining town in Nevada, or the railroad that went past it? The government owes everything to business, not the other way around. By the way, roads were dirt before the Model-T, the automotive industry is the reason that the Department of Transportation is so successful, so why aren't we talking about that?! Also, now people are seriously arguing that luck is the make-or-break in whether a business succeeds or not? If that's the case why doesn't everyone just roll the dice to see if they can be the next millionaire? They don't, because that's not the largest contributor; the market research, business plan, accounting, employee selection, location, smart inventory, and risk and brutal amounts of work that are the real major contributors. Finally, you missed the most important part of my post, but I guess that's my fault for putting it at the bottom. So here we go, I'm not putting it at the bottom again! (and adding clarification in brackets) On July 26 2012 01:17 Budmandude wrote:
In this speech he listed constants (society, infrastructure) as if they were the variables. This leads to a perception of an attack on small business [no matter what was intended], and perception is reality. This line is to make sure the quote isn't at the bottom of my post tl;dr: Stop being lazy in a discussion thread and read my post. Except many Republicans are all too willing to sacrifice these things to "balance budgets" while giving tax breaks to people who insist their success is theirs alone. Entitlement programs != roads, police, fire, etc.
|
Blazinghand
United States25552 Posts
On July 26 2012 02:34 Budmandude wrote:Show nested quote +On July 26 2012 02:28 aksfjh wrote:On July 26 2012 02:18 Budmandude wrote:On July 26 2012 01:48 DoubleReed wrote:
Pffff, who builds a stool with three legs? Sounds like commie talk to me. Someone give this poster a medal for being so witty and contributing so much to this thread! ------------------------------------ Wow this is amazing, you guys missed my point entirely. Infrastructure is constant for all people in the United States, therefor it has no impact on the success rate of businesses in the United States (which is what we are talking about by the way). If it had such a large impact, then why doesn't every business succeed? Every business owner (and citizen with an IQ higher than 50) knows that roads are important, and that everyone pays for them, but it's a constant and therefore not relevant when it comes to talking about successful businesses in the united states, so why draw attention to it when talking about businesses succeeding? I've never seen anyone, business owner or conservative, arguing against the government keeping up roads, bridges, fire, and police so why bother bringing it up other than to just pat yourself on the back for a business you didn't have any part in building or making successful? (remember, they paid for it as well) Additionally, what lead to the infrastructure being built? Oh, that's right, business and trade! Which existed first: the mining town in Nevada, or the railroad that went past it? The government owes everything to business, not the other way around. By the way, roads were dirt before the Model-T, the automotive industry is the reason that the Department of Transportation is so successful, so why aren't we talking about that?! Also, now people are seriously arguing that luck is the make-or-break in whether a business succeeds or not? If that's the case why doesn't everyone just roll the dice to see if they can be the next millionaire? They don't, because that's not the largest contributor; the market research, business plan, accounting, employee selection, location, smart inventory, and risk and brutal amounts of work that are the real major contributors. Finally, you missed the most important part of my post, but I guess that's my fault for putting it at the bottom. So here we go, I'm not putting it at the bottom again! (and adding clarification in brackets) On July 26 2012 01:17 Budmandude wrote:
In this speech he listed constants (society, infrastructure) as if they were the variables. This leads to a perception of an attack on small business [no matter what was intended], and perception is reality. This line is to make sure the quote isn't at the bottom of my post tl;dr: Stop being lazy in a discussion thread and read my post. Except many Republicans are all too willing to sacrifice these things to "balance budgets" while giving tax breaks to people who insist their success is theirs alone. Entitlement programs != roads, police, fire, etc.
In my experience, the biggest municipal expense is paying pensions for policemen and firemen-- police and fire pensions are the reason the city of Stockton, CA went bankrupt. It's not some universal entitlement, but I can assure you any talk about a municipal budget is necessarily a talk about entitlement for public sector employees.
Who do you think teaches people? Teachers from the teachers' union, all publically employed. Who do you think is "police, fire, roads"? WORKERS. Workers with pensions, with healthcare provided by the state-- entitlements make up the big expense for state and municipal governments.
You can't just seperate these things. You can't talk entitlements and pretend you're not talking about police, fire, roads, and education.
|
On July 26 2012 02:18 Budmandude wrote:
Infrastructure is constant for all people in the United States, therefor it has no impact on the success rate of businesses in the United States (which is what we are talking about by the way).
By that same logic, I shall assume that hard work has no impact on success because it's about as constant as infrastructure.
So really, your parents' business success came from only one factor: luck.
|
On July 26 2012 01:20 kwizach wrote:Show nested quote +On July 26 2012 01:06 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On July 25 2012 22:45 kwizach wrote:On July 24 2012 02:48 JonnyBNoHo 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. 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. That 42% wage difference was for financial planners - a commission/bonus based job. You really can't show discrimination at a national level. There's just too many different factors involved. Women might choose a job as a financial planner that pays mostly on salary (+bonus) while men might choose financial planner jobs that pay mostly (or only) commission - and get paid more for it. If the 42% difference was at all valid it would make for an extremely easy lawsuit. Again, you need to read the article better. The authors explicitly state that the different non-gender discrimination factors they found that could have an influence on wage difference did not suffice to explain the wage differences. Gender discrimination was clearly still at play. In the case of the 42% difference example, nobody's saying the entire 42% difference is explained by gender discrimination, but rather that the outside factors are unlikely to explain the entire difference by themselves. Forget that example if you want and focus on the broader picture, in which almost every single occupation sees higher pay for men. Yes but other factors that they did not, or could not, look into can still exist. Most likely the authors used easy to get data from the BLS and census bureau which isn't detailed enough for a real apples to apples comparison. So your argument is essentially "I have no facts or evidence whatsoever to stand on, but I choose to believe outside factors suffice to explain the wage differences between women and men rather than gender discrimination"?
My argument is that a national 'wage gap' is a completely meaningless metric. You can really only show discrimination at an organization or individual level. There are too many variables otherwise.
http://www.suntimes.com/news/otherviews/12317207-452/bias-isnt-to-blame-for-wage-gap.html
Researchers have recalculated earnings differences between the sexes taking all this [hours worked, education, experience, etc.], as well as things like parental status and number of children, into account. When they do, they find that women make between 93 and 95 cents for every dollar earned by men — a difference worth noting but one that doesn’t make for effective political warfare.
Does discrimination account for the remaining 7 cent gap? It probably explains some of it. But there could be other differences between male and female workers that we can’t measure.
Consider this example. Female pediatricians earn less than male — even while controlling for many of the factors we’ve seen. But several studies show that discrimination may not account for the rest of the gap.
Men are more focused on career advancement, income and long-term earning potential, according to a 2006 AMA Survey of Physicians, while women were more interested in scheduling flexibility.
Female physicians work fewer hours overall, other AMA data indicate, and see fewer patients than their male counterparts. Women doctors are also considerably less likely to own a group practice.
What’s suggested here is that even if we could end all discrimination, the bulk of the gender gap would remain.
|
On July 26 2012 02:41 Lightwip wrote:Show nested quote +On July 26 2012 02:18 Budmandude wrote:
Infrastructure is constant for all people in the United States, therefor it has no impact on the success rate of businesses in the United States (which is what we are talking about by the way).
By that same logic, I shall assume that hard work has no impact on success because it's about as constant as infrastructure. So really, your parents' business success came from only one factor: luck.
So MKP is successful only due to luck? Things like skill and ability are not factors?
|
On July 26 2012 02:54 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On July 26 2012 01:20 kwizach wrote:On July 26 2012 01:06 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On July 25 2012 22:45 kwizach wrote:On July 24 2012 02:48 JonnyBNoHo 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. 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. That 42% wage difference was for financial planners - a commission/bonus based job. You really can't show discrimination at a national level. There's just too many different factors involved. Women might choose a job as a financial planner that pays mostly on salary (+bonus) while men might choose financial planner jobs that pay mostly (or only) commission - and get paid more for it. If the 42% difference was at all valid it would make for an extremely easy lawsuit. Again, you need to read the article better. The authors explicitly state that the different non-gender discrimination factors they found that could have an influence on wage difference did not suffice to explain the wage differences. Gender discrimination was clearly still at play. In the case of the 42% difference example, nobody's saying the entire 42% difference is explained by gender discrimination, but rather that the outside factors are unlikely to explain the entire difference by themselves. Forget that example if you want and focus on the broader picture, in which almost every single occupation sees higher pay for men. Yes but other factors that they did not, or could not, look into can still exist. Most likely the authors used easy to get data from the BLS and census bureau which isn't detailed enough for a real apples to apples comparison. So your argument is essentially "I have no facts or evidence whatsoever to stand on, but I choose to believe outside factors suffice to explain the wage differences between women and men rather than gender discrimination"? My argument is that a national 'wage gap' is a completely meaningless metric. You can really only show discrimination at an organization or individual level. There are too many variables otherwise. http://www.suntimes.com/news/otherviews/12317207-452/bias-isnt-to-blame-for-wage-gap.htmlShow nested quote +Researchers have recalculated earnings differences between the sexes taking all this [hours worked, education, experience, etc.], as well as things like parental status and number of children, into account. When they do, they find that women make between 93 and 95 cents for every dollar earned by men — a difference worth noting but one that doesn’t make for effective political warfare.
Does discrimination account for the remaining 7 cent gap? It probably explains some of it. But there could be other differences between male and female workers that we can’t measure.
Consider this example. Female pediatricians earn less than male — even while controlling for many of the factors we’ve seen. But several studies show that discrimination may not account for the rest of the gap.
Men are more focused on career advancement, income and long-term earning potential, according to a 2006 AMA Survey of Physicians, while women were more interested in scheduling flexibility.
Female physicians work fewer hours overall, other AMA data indicate, and see fewer patients than their male counterparts. Women doctors are also considerably less likely to own a group practice.
What’s suggested here is that even if we could end all discrimination, the bulk of the gender gap would remain.
Gender wage discrimination statistics isn't something that I've looked into, but that article seems bullshit. It claims that there's a 7c difference taking all factors into account, like hours worked, then it says that women earn less because they work less hours.
|
Blazinghand
United States25552 Posts
On July 26 2012 02:56 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On July 26 2012 02:41 Lightwip wrote:On July 26 2012 02:18 Budmandude wrote:
Infrastructure is constant for all people in the United States, therefor it has no impact on the success rate of businesses in the United States (which is what we are talking about by the way).
By that same logic, I shall assume that hard work has no impact on success because it's about as constant as infrastructure. So really, your parents' business success came from only one factor: luck. So MKP is successful only due to luck? Things like skill and ability are not factors?
Surely this reply of yours is a joke, right? The context of the statement is that "assuming we control for / ignore hard work and pre-existing conditions and infrastructure"
MKP's skill is a function of 3 legs: his hard work, the society / infrastructure that lets him do what he does, and his luck for being born in say, south korea instead of north korea, and with the raw materials, reflexes etc to become a progamer some day.
If we control for *hard work* and *infrastructure and pre-existing conditions*, then yes, MKP is successful cause he was lucky enough to be born with the raw attributes necessary to be a progamer, and Sc2 turned out to be a good game, and a million other factors that are necessary, which along with hard work and infrastructure made him who he is today.
Like, did you even read the thread and discussion between badmandude, lightwip, and myself? How could you not know what we're talking about? Is this really a good-faith question you're asking, or are you intentionally misrepresenting budmandude, lightwip and myself?
|
On July 26 2012 03:00 paralleluniverse wrote:Show nested quote +On July 26 2012 02:54 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On July 26 2012 01:20 kwizach wrote:On July 26 2012 01:06 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On July 25 2012 22:45 kwizach wrote:On July 24 2012 02:48 JonnyBNoHo 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. 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. That 42% wage difference was for financial planners - a commission/bonus based job. You really can't show discrimination at a national level. There's just too many different factors involved. Women might choose a job as a financial planner that pays mostly on salary (+bonus) while men might choose financial planner jobs that pay mostly (or only) commission - and get paid more for it. If the 42% difference was at all valid it would make for an extremely easy lawsuit. Again, you need to read the article better. The authors explicitly state that the different non-gender discrimination factors they found that could have an influence on wage difference did not suffice to explain the wage differences. Gender discrimination was clearly still at play. In the case of the 42% difference example, nobody's saying the entire 42% difference is explained by gender discrimination, but rather that the outside factors are unlikely to explain the entire difference by themselves. Forget that example if you want and focus on the broader picture, in which almost every single occupation sees higher pay for men. Yes but other factors that they did not, or could not, look into can still exist. Most likely the authors used easy to get data from the BLS and census bureau which isn't detailed enough for a real apples to apples comparison. So your argument is essentially "I have no facts or evidence whatsoever to stand on, but I choose to believe outside factors suffice to explain the wage differences between women and men rather than gender discrimination"? My argument is that a national 'wage gap' is a completely meaningless metric. You can really only show discrimination at an organization or individual level. There are too many variables otherwise. http://www.suntimes.com/news/otherviews/12317207-452/bias-isnt-to-blame-for-wage-gap.htmlResearchers have recalculated earnings differences between the sexes taking all this [hours worked, education, experience, etc.], as well as things like parental status and number of children, into account. When they do, they find that women make between 93 and 95 cents for every dollar earned by men — a difference worth noting but one that doesn’t make for effective political warfare.
Does discrimination account for the remaining 7 cent gap? It probably explains some of it. But there could be other differences between male and female workers that we can’t measure.
Consider this example. Female pediatricians earn less than male — even while controlling for many of the factors we’ve seen. But several studies show that discrimination may not account for the rest of the gap.
Men are more focused on career advancement, income and long-term earning potential, according to a 2006 AMA Survey of Physicians, while women were more interested in scheduling flexibility.
Female physicians work fewer hours overall, other AMA data indicate, and see fewer patients than their male counterparts. Women doctors are also considerably less likely to own a group practice.
What’s suggested here is that even if we could end all discrimination, the bulk of the gender gap would remain. Gender wage discrimination statistics isn't something that I've looked into, but that article seems bullshit. It claims that there's a 7c difference taking all factors into account, like hours worked, then it says that women earn less because they work less hours.
Yes the article repeated that data point - that doesn't make it BS. It also listed other data points such as owning a group practice and favoring flexibility over pay.
|
That's interesting, my google-fu must be weak.
Though Santorum and Gingrich have dropped out, so those delegates are up for grabs at least.
|
On July 26 2012 03:00 Blazinghand wrote:Show nested quote +On July 26 2012 02:56 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On July 26 2012 02:41 Lightwip wrote:On July 26 2012 02:18 Budmandude wrote:
Infrastructure is constant for all people in the United States, therefor it has no impact on the success rate of businesses in the United States (which is what we are talking about by the way).
By that same logic, I shall assume that hard work has no impact on success because it's about as constant as infrastructure. So really, your parents' business success came from only one factor: luck. So MKP is successful only due to luck? Things like skill and ability are not factors? Surely this reply of yours is a joke, right? The context of the statement is that "assuming we control for / ignore hard work and pre-existing conditions and infrastructure" MKP's skill is a function of 3 legs: his hard work, the society / infrastructure that lets him do what he does, and his luck for being born in say, south korea instead of north korea, and with the raw materials, reflexes etc to become a progamer some day.
If we control for *hard work* and *infrastructure and pre-existing conditions*, then yes, MKP is successful cause he was lucky enough to be born with the raw attributes necessary to be a progamer, and Sc2 turned out to be a good game, and a million other factors that are necessary, which along with hard work and infrastructure made him who he is today. Like, did you even read the thread and discussion between badmandude, lightwip, and myself? How could you not know what we're talking about? Is this really a good-faith question you're asking, or are you intentionally misrepresenting budmandude, lightwip and myself?
My mistake, I thought you were discussing something relevant.
|
Blazinghand
United States25552 Posts
On July 26 2012 03:23 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On July 26 2012 03:00 Blazinghand wrote:On July 26 2012 02:56 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On July 26 2012 02:41 Lightwip wrote:On July 26 2012 02:18 Budmandude wrote:
Infrastructure is constant for all people in the United States, therefor it has no impact on the success rate of businesses in the United States (which is what we are talking about by the way).
By that same logic, I shall assume that hard work has no impact on success because it's about as constant as infrastructure. So really, your parents' business success came from only one factor: luck. So MKP is successful only due to luck? Things like skill and ability are not factors? Surely this reply of yours is a joke, right? The context of the statement is that "assuming we control for / ignore hard work and pre-existing conditions and infrastructure" MKP's skill is a function of 3 legs: his hard work, the society / infrastructure that lets him do what he does, and his luck for being born in say, south korea instead of north korea, and with the raw materials, reflexes etc to become a progamer some day.
If we control for *hard work* and *infrastructure and pre-existing conditions*, then yes, MKP is successful cause he was lucky enough to be born with the raw attributes necessary to be a progamer, and Sc2 turned out to be a good game, and a million other factors that are necessary, which along with hard work and infrastructure made him who he is today. Like, did you even read the thread and discussion between badmandude, lightwip, and myself? How could you not know what we're talking about? Is this really a good-faith question you're asking, or are you intentionally misrepresenting budmandude, lightwip and myself? My mistake, I thought you were discussing something relevant.
We are-- we're talking about different worldviews on how one comes to be successful, in the context of President Obama's recent speech in Roanoke. I'll refer you to this post (link) and the following discussion, should you choose to inform yourself before randomly making condescending (and subtly insulting) statements and asking bad-faith questions.
|
Jonny: To say "you can equally well derive [silly thing] from your argument" is to say you disagree with the argument, not that you believe in [silly thing].
The people you are heckling are trying to point out that neither hard work nor quality of infrastructure are constants throughout the US.
Edit: Since you seem to key into the SC-related parts of the posts and ignore the other stuff, I'll boil it down further: There is consensus that MKP's success depends on his skill, among other factors. I know you were worried about that.
|
|
|
On July 26 2012 03:28 Blazinghand wrote:Show nested quote +On July 26 2012 03:23 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On July 26 2012 03:00 Blazinghand wrote:On July 26 2012 02:56 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On July 26 2012 02:41 Lightwip wrote:On July 26 2012 02:18 Budmandude wrote:
Infrastructure is constant for all people in the United States, therefor it has no impact on the success rate of businesses in the United States (which is what we are talking about by the way).
By that same logic, I shall assume that hard work has no impact on success because it's about as constant as infrastructure. So really, your parents' business success came from only one factor: luck. So MKP is successful only due to luck? Things like skill and ability are not factors? Surely this reply of yours is a joke, right? The context of the statement is that "assuming we control for / ignore hard work and pre-existing conditions and infrastructure" MKP's skill is a function of 3 legs: his hard work, the society / infrastructure that lets him do what he does, and his luck for being born in say, south korea instead of north korea, and with the raw materials, reflexes etc to become a progamer some day.
If we control for *hard work* and *infrastructure and pre-existing conditions*, then yes, MKP is successful cause he was lucky enough to be born with the raw attributes necessary to be a progamer, and Sc2 turned out to be a good game, and a million other factors that are necessary, which along with hard work and infrastructure made him who he is today. Like, did you even read the thread and discussion between badmandude, lightwip, and myself? How could you not know what we're talking about? Is this really a good-faith question you're asking, or are you intentionally misrepresenting budmandude, lightwip and myself? My mistake, I thought you were discussing something relevant. We are-- we're talking about different worldviews on how one comes to be successful, in the context of President Obama's recent speech in Roanoke. I'll refer you to this post (link) and the following discussion, should you choose to inform yourself before randomly making condescending (and subtly insulting) statements and asking bad-faith questions.
You may as well be arguing over which is more important for breeding chickens - the pre-existing chickens (the infrastructure) or the willingness for the chickens to breed (the entrepreneurial activity). Both are necessary. Any discussion over which is more important in the grand scheme of things is nonsense.
|
Blazinghand
United States25552 Posts
On July 26 2012 03:58 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On July 26 2012 03:28 Blazinghand wrote:On July 26 2012 03:23 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On July 26 2012 03:00 Blazinghand wrote:On July 26 2012 02:56 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On July 26 2012 02:41 Lightwip wrote:On July 26 2012 02:18 Budmandude wrote:
Infrastructure is constant for all people in the United States, therefor it has no impact on the success rate of businesses in the United States (which is what we are talking about by the way).
By that same logic, I shall assume that hard work has no impact on success because it's about as constant as infrastructure. So really, your parents' business success came from only one factor: luck. So MKP is successful only due to luck? Things like skill and ability are not factors? Surely this reply of yours is a joke, right? The context of the statement is that "assuming we control for / ignore hard work and pre-existing conditions and infrastructure" MKP's skill is a function of 3 legs: his hard work, the society / infrastructure that lets him do what he does, and his luck for being born in say, south korea instead of north korea, and with the raw materials, reflexes etc to become a progamer some day.
If we control for *hard work* and *infrastructure and pre-existing conditions*, then yes, MKP is successful cause he was lucky enough to be born with the raw attributes necessary to be a progamer, and Sc2 turned out to be a good game, and a million other factors that are necessary, which along with hard work and infrastructure made him who he is today. Like, did you even read the thread and discussion between badmandude, lightwip, and myself? How could you not know what we're talking about? Is this really a good-faith question you're asking, or are you intentionally misrepresenting budmandude, lightwip and myself? My mistake, I thought you were discussing something relevant. We are-- we're talking about different worldviews on how one comes to be successful, in the context of President Obama's recent speech in Roanoke. I'll refer you to this post (link) and the following discussion, should you choose to inform yourself before randomly making condescending (and subtly insulting) statements and asking bad-faith questions. You may as well be arguing over which is more important for breeding chickens - the pre-existing chickens (the infrastructure) or the willingness for the chickens to breed (the entrepreneurial activity). Both are necessary. Any discussion over which is more important in the grand scheme of things is nonsense.
A fair point. All legs of the stool are necessary to hold it up. What if, say, one of the legs is broken or frayed, though? I don't think it's to unreasonable to say that perhaps we should shift our focus to an oft-neglected leg that has fallen into disrepair. I believe at the core of it, that was the President's message-- that the "infrastructure" leg of the "success" stool is neglected, and needs repair, and currently that's more important than the "luck" leg of the stool or the "hard work" leg of the stool. Without the "infrastructure" leg, the stool falls over.
|
But the real question is, who is going to sit on the stool? And what are they going to do with themselves during this period of sitting?
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
