Progressiveness Gone Wild

[ZiprHead]

Humans always do what is in their own interest

Where do you come up with this stuff? Humans do stupid shit all the time.

They drive drunk. They do base jumping. They try to break land speed records (Jesse Combs). Every year, dozens of influencers die falling off cliffs, being beheaded by trains or getting crushed between boats or vehicles, all in a quest for likes, shares, and a desire to “go viral”. The list of stupid shit people do could be endless.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Women are paid less than men.

A wikipedia article that itself cites an opinion piece by Janet Yellen from 2020 that does not source her claims. And even so, she uses weasel-words like "similar occupations", i.e. not same, and "appear nearly identical in background and experience". No sources, no explanation how similar occupations and backgrounds/experience are considered.
That's because Janet Yellen, just like you, is pushing a political, feminist point of view.

The degree of gender discrimination in compensation is disputed but the evidence that women have traditionally under-payed in many occupations is well documented and understood. The factors involved are complex and consensus on the appropriate methods to address any compensation differentials has yet to be reached. But it is absurd to claim that observing a fact is political or feminist view. Such a claim smacks of insanity or misogyny.

Goalposts!!!

Once again, technically correct but irrelevant. We aren't talking about the past, we are talking about the present. Historical underpayment of women has no bearing on it. And you are taking as a given something which is contested.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

I think many low-income families have had such experiences with their relatives, and are well aware of the problem I just described. They would be pleased by politicians who work to alleviate such inequities.

What you describe here is the motivation behind the "no bail" legislation in several states.
Unfortunately, but hardly surprisingly, these so-called "bail reforms" have been abused by criminals who get arrested for "no bail" crimes over and over again but are always release back into the community.

In your black-or-white caricature of the world if "no bail" is granted to a suspect who has never been arrested then "progressives" think it must be granted to to a suspect no matter how many times he has been arrested or convicted, right?

And the government funding needed to actually present facts to a jury is unavailable because scarce legal resources are better spent for defendant's attorneys in civil actions; did I guess that right too?

The basic problem here is the bail reform movement exposed how broken the system actually is.

People weren't being punished on conviction, they were being punished by not being able to make bail. There's no proof of guilt, it only worked to a degree because most of the time the cops caught the right person. Bail reform fixed that--and exposed the fact that we aren't realistically punishing the lesser lawbreakers.

The right is all upset because the lawbreakers aren't being meaningfully punished, but they're trying to shoot the messenger. Bail reform didn't cause this, it exposed it.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Should restaurants and bookstores and other establishments be permitted to offer discounts to seniors, to students, and to health-care workers? And I know places in NYC that do that all the time, not just once in a while.

I think this is much ado about nothing. All civil rights laws were intended to end systematic discrimination against specific categories of people, not to govern discount promotion nights or certain courtesy discounts.

This is what people are worrying about on the eve of the new MAGGOT takeover?

So long as said promotions do not end up being de-facto discrimination. A redneck bar that says "whites 80% off" and jacks it's prices 5x isn't acceptable.

Back in the 80s--my wife worked for a short while that had printed on the menu "cops in uniform receive free soft drinks". Wasn't even about being nice to cops, but rather that something like that means cops are more likely to stop by and that's a deterrent to crime. (University neighborhood, it wasn't a bad place. Might have been chain-wide, though.)

 

[Loren Pechtel]

It's even less than less pay, or even more inequitable when corrected for confounders such as family responsibilities, childcare, shopping, laundry, housecleaning and other frequently non-optional additions to professional careers that routinely fall disproportionately to the female parent.

Domestic confounders are not the responsibility of the employer.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Considering that women are still usually paid a bit less compared to men, often even when doing the same job,

Women do not get paid less for the same job, when correcting for confounders such as hours worked or experience. That is a feminist canard that is unfortunately still explicitly believed.

Women are paid less than men.

Thank you for the link. I know it's often true in nursing, that women are paid less than men in the same jobs.

You can search for all this on the internet and discover tons of documentation about the persistent wage gap between men and women. But Derec, who could find this stuff just as easily as anyone else, blandly struts in here and just asserts that no such gap exists. It’s really pitiful.

Tons of documentation that give different results. Digging into it it's a matter of confounders, the more you account for the less discrimination you see. Controlling for three brings the gap down to 2%: same exact position, same hours worked without a "full time" category and years of experience rather than age. That is clearly not a comprehensive list of things that need to be checked. But instead we see the big numbers repeated over and over but basically nobody trying to test if there's anything left after considering confounders. I find the omission very relevant.

 

[Elixir]

That is clearly not a comprehensive list of things that need to be checked. But instead we see the big numbers repeated over and over but basically nobody trying to test if there's anything left after considering confounders. I find the omission very relevant.

That is clearly not an itemized list of “confounders” replete with data sets supporting values for the effects of specific confounders upon gender based employment decisions.

IOW I call bullshit.

Gender discrimination is real, and anyone who has employed people, knows it. Quantifying it is obviously difficult but specious hand waving away of the problem is … well, part of the problem.

 

[RVonse]

That is clearly not a comprehensive list of things that need to be checked. But instead we see the big numbers repeated over and over but basically nobody trying to test if there's anything left after considering confounders. I find the omission very relevant.

That is clearly not an itemized list of “confounders” replete with data sets supporting values for the effects of specific confounders upon gender based employment decisions.

IOW I call bullshit.

Gender discrimination is real, and anyone who has employed people, knows it. Quantifying it is obviously difficult but specious hand waving away of the problem is … well, part of the problem.

If you are an employer and know that gender discrimination is so real, why don't you employ 100% all women and make more money? You're going to tell us you don't want to make more money? And more to the point, why doesn't everyone else hire only the women and no one else so they are employing only those individuals who produce more at a lower salary?

It is because we all know this so called discrimination is bullshit.

 

[laughing dog]

That is clearly not a comprehensive list of things that need to be checked. But instead we see the big numbers repeated over and over but basically nobody trying to test if there's anything left after considering confounders. I find the omission very relevant.

That is clearly not an itemized list of “confounders” replete with data sets supporting values for the effects of specific confounders upon gender based employment decisions.

IOW I call bullshit.

Gender discrimination is real, and anyone who has employed people, knows it. Quantifying it is obviously difficult but specious hand waving away of the problem is … well, part of the problem.

If you are an employer and know that gender discrimination is so real, why don't you employ 100% all women and make more money? You're going to tell us you don't want to make more money? And more to the point, why doesn't everyone else hire only the women and no one else so they are employing only those individuals who produce more at a lower salary?

It is because we all know this so called discrimination is bullshit.

There are many field where there are simply not enough women to fill all the openings, so your scenario is impossible. Moreover, there are customers who would not buy from an all-female business (or an all-male business).

Compensation discrimination is well-documented in history in many forms: age, race , ethnicity and gender. The degree to which it occurs today depends on many factors. I suspect that claim it is gender discrimination in compensation is "bullshit" or non-existent is driven by a nostalgic view of the past and frustration with current life, or misogyny.

 

[RVonse]

That is clearly not a comprehensive list of things that need to be checked. But instead we see the big numbers repeated over and over but basically nobody trying to test if there's anything left after considering confounders. I find the omission very relevant.

That is clearly not an itemized list of “confounders” replete with data sets supporting values for the effects of specific confounders upon gender based employment decisions.

IOW I call bullshit.

Gender discrimination is real, and anyone who has employed people, knows it. Quantifying it is obviously difficult but specious hand waving away of the problem is … well, part of the problem.

If you are an employer and know that gender discrimination is so real, why don't you employ 100% all women and make more money? You're going to tell us you don't want to make more money? And more to the point, why doesn't everyone else hire only the women and no one else so they are employing only those individuals who produce more at a lower salary?

It is because we all know this so called discrimination is bullshit.

There are many field where there are simply not enough women to fill all the openings, so your scenario is impossible.

Not enough women to fill all the openings? If the women do not want the job in the first place doesn't that already tell us the market (womens preference to the job) thinks they are better at something else?

 

[RVonse]

Moreover, there are customers who would not buy from an all-female business (or an all-male business).

How would the customer know who manufactured the product? And if it is a marketing kind of business that does happen to have customers who only want males, then the market is showing preference to them. Which means those male employees are actually worth more to the business and should command a higher salary based just on that.

 

[RVonse]

Compensation discrimination is well-documented in history in many forms: age, race , ethnicity and gender. The degree to which it occurs today depends on many factors. I suspect that claim it is gender discrimination in compensation is "bullshit" or non-existent is driven by a nostalgic view of the past and frustration with current life, or misogyny.

All I know is that the market really works because everyone wants the same things. Namely money and a good job that pays good money to buy other consumption. You can go to the bank knowing the market is telling you what is real.

All this other documented studying could be flawed or not depending on who gets paid to do it and for putting out which numbers a political cause wants to hear.

 

[laughing dog]

Compensation discrimination is well-documented in history in many forms: age, race , ethnicity and gender. The degree to which it occurs today depends on many factors. I suspect that claim it is gender discrimination in compensation is "bullshit" or non-existent is driven by a nostalgic view of the past and frustration with current life, or misogyny.

All I know is that the market really works because everyone wants the same things.

The market works in allocating goods and services to those who are willing and able to purchase them. If that is what you mean by "really works", then okay.

Namely money and a good job that pays good money to buy other consumption.

But everyone who wants a good job and that pays good money does not get such a job. Does that mean the market does not "really work"?

You can go to the bank knowing the market is telling you what is real.

So if the market shows that _____ (you pick the characteristic) is generally paid more for the same work, then it is real but it is not discrimination. That makes no sense to me.

All this other documented studying could be flawed or not depending on who gets paid to do it and for putting out which numbers a political cause wants to hear.

The studies are based on market data -you know, the institution that tells us what is real. While individual studies may be flawed, the number and breadth of the studies and observations are too numerous to deny the overall result: wage discrimination has existed in the market and still does to some extent in certain occupations.

If you have to resort to some sort of conspiracy explanation to defend most of your views, it is a big flag that the problem is the view.

 

[laughing dog]

How would the customer know who manufactured the product?

By looking at the product label.

 

[laughing dog]

That is clearly not a comprehensive list of th

There are many field where there are simply not enough women to fill all the openings, so your scenario is impossible.

Not enough women to fill all the openings? If the women do not want the job in the first place doesn't that already tell us the market (womens preference to the job) thinks they are better at something else?

No. It shows that women do not want to work in the occupation for the going compensation package. And compensation includes all benefits and workplace environment - physical and social.

 

[Colonel Sanders]

Women are paid less than men.

A wikipedia article that itself cites an opinion piece by Janet Yellen from 2020 that does not source her claims. And even so, she uses weasel-words like "similar occupations", i.e. not same, and "appear nearly identical in background and experience". No sources, no explanation how similar occupations and backgrounds/experience are considered.
That's because Janet Yellen, just like you, is pushing a political, feminist point of view.

One of the more insidious notions that came from the feminist movements of the 60s and 70s was that women could have it all. You can have a job, you can have a family, you can have all the things that men have!

That stemmed from the misguided idea that men "had it all" to begin with. It's not that women didn't deserve the same opportunities, of course they did and still do. The problem was that "having it all" was a horrible fucking lie.

When long term spousal support is at issue, I've only handled one matter where wife had to pay husband. It's almost always husband having to pay SS (in long term marriage i.e. 10+ years).

Oftentimes it's because the parties agreed early on that husband would work and wife would stay home with the children. Despite the left's insistence that this is outdated and oppressive, it's not. It's still very common and is the basis for the issuance of a long term/permanent SS order (note: this is California, other ass backwards rules in red states probably don't apply).

The point is that yes, on average, men do make more than women largely because they stay at their jobs longer due to the family dynamic, not because the nefarious patriarchy is out to get them. Leave the workforce for 5+ years and yes, you will get paid less than if you'd stayed at that job, and yes, husband will be making more than he did 5+ years ago.

NOTE: I'm leaving out a ton of details. It's Friday night and I'm working tomorrow and traveling for work on a goddamn Sunday.

 

[unapologetic]

it could be incels who resent not getting laid, so they take it out on women getting free or cheap drinks.

I don't think it is taking it out on women.
"Dam it! These drinks aren't working! I'll sue the bar owner."

So is it to get women looser or men more hopeful? Or both?

Yes.

Instead elite Democrats, with income to bail out their child and hire a top lawyer...

You watch too much FauxNews. Blaming Democrats for things ALL rich folks do.
Look around at all the rich people who backed Rump/Repgnant Party.

 

[GenesisNemesis]

Also some of these same anti-woke people brush off deaths from Covid like it's not a big deal, even though that actually is an example of a massive problem. Fuck 'em.

 

[Swammerdami]

Instead elite Democrats, with income to bail out their child and hire a top lawyer...

You watch too much FauxNews. Blaming Democrats for things ALL rich folks do.
Look around at all the rich people who backed Rump/Repgnant Party.

Wow. Are you going for some Biggest Non Sequitur award? The thread title was about Progressives (i.e. Democrats) going wild. My point was that their "elite" leaders are out of touch with common concerns. WHAT is your point about "rich people backing Rump"? Do you think you're telling us something we didn't already know?

You might have been able to figure out all by yourself how nonsensical your response was, had you quoted a complete sentence from my post! Instead you snipped it down to a phrase. Is that "debate" technique -- allowing you to "ridicule" something that isn't even a complete thought?? -- something you picked up in your study of FoxNews?

And the only time I see anything at FoxNews is when Jon Stewart or Seth Myers shows me an excerpt from them.

(Regarding another thread, I live in the Kingdom of Thailand. I don't think my local library has a subscription to Kanopy.)

 

[unapologetic]

The thread title was about Progressives (i.e. Democrats) going wild.

No it wasn't.
If you think "progressives" is a codeword for Democrats, that proves my point that you watch too much FauxNews/Republican propaganda.
That would make republicans 'regressives'.