|
Lotta people making claims with zero evidence in this thread.
|
#
¿
Jan 30, 2016 18:14
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 22, 2024 19:03 |
|
|
Who What Now posted:This would only be true if all hiring managers were absolutely perfect and logical machines and not human beings with emotions and prejudices. So this argument falls apart immediately under the barest amount of scrutiny. You're doing this wrong. Instead of treating the rationality of managers as a statement that can be evaluated based on evidence you need to just assume, axiomatically, that all economic actors are perfectly rational. Then, based on this assumption and a few other untested assumptions you deduce conclusions about how the market behaves. These models are far too perfect and elegant for us to risk damaging them by introducing real world observations or data to the glory that is Econ101.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 30, 2016 20:17
|
|
|
The Kingfish posted:If you control for everything the gap is ~5%, the majority of which comes from extremely high earning women who are less likely to negotiate than their peers. The women who are struggling to make ends meet are almost certainly making the same amount as their male peers. Where are you getting this figure from?
|
|
#
¿
Feb 1, 2016 19:06
|
|
|
Radbot posted:Addressing the racial wage gap is infinitely more important than addressing the gender wage gap. Women being "forced" to have kids and work is obviously less of an issue than a class of folks who get paid less no matter what choices they make. First of all there's a lot of overlap between the victims of sexual or gender based discrimination and the victims of racial discrimination. Second of all, both these problems are aggravated by a lot of fanciful free market mythologizing -- some of which we've seen in this very thread -- which means that in many cases there is no reason to treat these problems in isolation, since they have some common causes. Finally, the historical record seems to suggest that building a sufficiently strong political coalition to challenge the status quo regarding either form of inequality is probably going to require combining several different demographics and convincing them that the best way to better their situations is by working together. If we look back at the limited but real successes of 20th century movements then it's clear that the experiences of the anti-segregation movements, the anti-war movements, womens lib and later gay rights all built upon and were strengthened by each other. I don't know what your particular intention is making that post but I find quite often these kinds of comments are used opportunistically to try and shut down any criticism of the status quo. "Oh how can you be talking about this issue when there's some other issue that you aren't addressing! First fix that issue!" There are some real problems with lefty or progressive groups focusing on one category of discrimination, such as gender or class, at the expense of others, such as race. It's a particularly big problem in America where race plays so deeply into every other form of politics. But, having acknowledged this, I don't think it follows that we have to choose between addressing racial discrimination rather than gender discrimination, because by far the most effective strategy is to try and fix both of them (and a number of class related issues as well) at the same time, by building effective grass roots and populist movements.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 1, 2016 20:59
|
|
|
It's a fairly generic lefty analysis of social change actually. So far as I can tell Sanders doesn't qualify because he isn't really building a movement, he's just running a campaign that will disappear after it inevitably fails to win the primary.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 1, 2016 21:07
|
|
|
Radbot posted:No I'm just saying that is pretty much the exact thing Bernie supporters said to TNC re: reparations. I guess that's a really interesting and insightful comment for you to make in some bizzaro world alternative universe where we were having a conversation about whether or not the candidates who won't win the Democratic primary should be advocating for a policy that the Democrats won't support anyway. There was a point in Martin Luther King's life as an activist when he considered running in the 1968 presidential election, but he realized how pointless and wasteful such an exercise would be so instead he threw his energy into the "Poor Peoples Campaign", which tried to link racial grievances with more general economic issues. That was unfortunately cut short by his death. I would consider that a much more interesting topic of discussion than whatever boring obsession you have with the Democratic primary.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 1, 2016 21:30
|
|
|
If you want to unpack why you think that having different social movements ally together is going to hurt the cause of the less privileged parts of the movement then I'll happily engage with you. It's an important and much discussed topic and it doesn't lend itself to easy solutions. You might start by actually outlying what kind of model you have for how social change gets enacted -- perhaps furnished with some examples of past successes. If you just have some ax to grind with the Sanderistas then you can probably find more eager playmates than I because that stuff is deadly dull.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 1, 2016 21:43
|
|
|
  I guess I should be surprised that trolling through obtuseness is a thing in D&D. The sad thing being it will definitely work because some dumb statements are just too enticing for posters not to reply to. (USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)
|
|
#
¿
Feb 1, 2016 21:57
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 22, 2024 19:03 |
|
|
There's probably a related issue here of corporate culture often demanding insane working hours. It's kind of surreal when you realize that the economy simultaneously over works people and yet cannot find enough jobs for the entire populace. Some of that can at attributed to a mismatch in skills but I also think part of the problem is that there are people who work to live and then there are people who live to work, and right now much of the world seems to be run by the people who live to work. They are quite happy pulling 60-70+ hour weeks as a computer joceky, investment bankers or lawyers or CEOs because frankly they have no life worth living outside their workplace, but unfortunately they're setting norms that the rest of the economy is supposed to follow. I remember hearing some gossip about a guy who does investment banking but didn't like to work weekends. The rest of his office thought this was totally bizarre and other house wives in his community marveled at the fact that he would be at home with his kids rather than making more money at the office. This is a guy who was already unquestionably in the top 1% of the income distribution (realistically, probably the 1% of the 1%) but people were still confused that he wasn't spending every waking moment trying to get even more cash. At least the old feudal aristocracy seemed to live a life worth envying.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 3, 2016 04:23
|
|