Why Did Republicans Abandon Conservatism?

  • Thread starter Thread starter CFordUNC
  • Start date Start date
  • Replies: 300
  • Views: 4K
  • Politics 
UNCatTech said:
Wait according to drump politico is an undercover democratic operation siphoning money off the government tit.
Click to expand...
Which is hilarious, given that Politico was bought several years ago by a right-wing German media mogul and Trump admirer. He's actually moved Politico to the right, although they apparently still have enough independence to post some articles critical of Trump or Trumpism from time to time.
 
ZenMode said:
I think we have no idea if there is a wage gap because the original calculation that everyone references, which puts women's earnings at about 75% of men's, took absolutely no variables into consideration. Variables being things like the fact that men are more likely to work overtime. The fact that men are more likely to get into higher paying fields of work. The fact that women are more likely to stay home to have children or stay home to take care of children when they're sick or out of school on a break.

I think there was a point in time where affirmative action laws made sense. That time has long since passed.
Click to expand...
You do realize that just 50 years ago a woman couldn't get a loan or a credit card without a male cosigner, don't you?

QoD [WHM]: Year women could get credit cards without co-signer - Blog

Question of the Day for teachers and students [Women's History Month]: When were women first able to get credit cards without a co-signer?
www.ngpf.org www.ngpf.org

Do you really believe that our society has shifted from this kind of subjugation of women to equal pay 8n 50 short years?
 
UNCatTech said:
You do realize that just 50 years ago a woman couldn't get a loan or a credit card without a male cosigner, don't you?

QoD [WHM]: Year women could get credit cards without co-signer - Blog

Question of the Day for teachers and students [Women's History Month]: When were women first able to get credit cards without a co-signer?
www.ngpf.org www.ngpf.org

Do you really believe that our society has shifted from this kind of subjugation of women to equal pay 8n 50 short years?
Click to expand...
I think I haven't seen any research that shows a wage gap.

If hiring women saved a company 20%, wouldn't we be seeing companies all over with almost all women?

Yet, men have a higher employment rate than women.

www.bls.gov

Women in the labor force: a databook

www.bls.gov www.bls.gov
 
Last edited:
ZenMode said:
I think I haven't seen any research that shows a wage gap.

If hiring women saved a company 20%, wouldn't we be seeing companies all over with almost all women?

Yet, men have a higher employment rate than women.

www.bls.gov

Women in the labor force: a databook

www.bls.gov www.bls.gov
Click to expand...
Do you not see this as a function of our society? Where men are traditionally the bread winners while women nurture the children?
Also, you seem to leave out a lot of other variables. Your own link gives lots of information to show why more men are employed,

From your link:
In 2021, women who worked full time in wage and salary jobs had median usual weekly earnings of $912, which represented 83.1 percent of men’s median weekly earnings ($1,097). Among women, earnings were higher for Asians ($1,141) than for Whites ($925), Blacks ($776), and Hispanics ($718). Women-to-men’s earnings ratios were higher for Blacks (94.1 percent) than for Hispanics (87.6 percent), Whites (82.2 percent), and Asians (78.5 percent). (See table 16; note that the comparisons of earnings in this report are on a broad level and do not control for many factors, like occupation, that may be important in explaining earnings differences.)

Women’s median usual weekly earnings vary by educational attainment. In 2021, among female full-time wage and salary workers age 25 and older, those with less than a high school diploma had median weekly earnings of $550. Women whose highest degree was a high school diploma had earnings of $698, those with an associate’s degree had earnings of $836, and those with a bachelor’s degree and higher had earnings of $1,272. (See table 17.)

By occupation, median usual weekly earnings of female full-time wage and salary workers in 2021 were the highest for other physicians ($2,283), pharmacists ($2,087), lawyers ($1,912), computer and information systems managers ($1,908), chief executives ($1,904), and nurse practitioners ($1,903). Earnings for men were highest for chief executives ($2,721), other physicians ($2,647), and lawyers ($2,495). (See table 18.)

In 2021, 1.8 percent of women who were paid hourly rates had earnings at or below the prevailing federal minimum wage ($7.25 per hour). Among women ages 16 to 24 who were paid an hourly rate, 4.3 percent had earnings at or below the minimum wage, compared with 1.2 percent of women age 25 and over. (See table 20.)
 
ZenMode said:
I think I haven't seen any research that shows a wage gap.

If hiring women saved a company 20%, wouldn't we be seeing companies all over with almost all women?

Yet, men have a higher employment rate than women.

www.bls.gov

Women in the labor force: a databook

www.bls.gov www.bls.gov
Click to expand...
Additionally, my point wasn't that there is or isn't a wage gap, the point is that our society has marginalized women, and they are only, in our lifetime, being treated more equally, so it's easy to believe that they would also be paid less.
 
ZenMode said:
I think I haven't seen any research that shows a wage gap.

If hiring women saved a company 20%, wouldn't we be seeing companies all over with almost all women?

Yet, men have a higher employment rate than women.

www.bls.gov

Women in the labor force: a databook

www.bls.gov www.bls.gov
Click to expand...
Read the fucking link I provided, which refers to a great deal of research. What the fuck is wrong with you, seriously? The world doesn't work according to your suppositions. Here you are, making the long-discredited Becker argument, and you don't even know what that means. You have no understanding of any labor market models that clearly demonstrate the possibility and indeed probability of persistent discrimination in employment markets. And there's data, and you could read it, but instead you prefer to mouth off like Elon Musk's kid. Except at least Elon's kid was directionally correct.

It is so sickening to read this utter tripe, deciding that the world must be just how they want it to be and dismissing all evidence to the contrary. It's not an opinion. It's just indigestion. What you feel deep down in your gut, with common sense, and duh, duh, derp let's accuse all experts of ignorance and celebrate morons whose eyes are glued to a boob tube every night, ingesting and absorbing eagerly the propaganda so easily devised to fool you.
 
superrific said:
You can read a full explainer here. You're welcomes.

www.epi.org

What is the gender pay gap and is it real?: The complete guide to how women are paid less than men and why it can’t be explained away

Working women are paid less than working men. A large body of research accounts for, diagnoses, and investigates this “gender pay gap.” But this literature often becomes unwieldy for lay readers, and because pay gaps are political topics, ideological agendas often seep quickly into discussions...
www.epi.org www.epi.org

Look in particular (though not exclusively) for this heading:

"Would adjusting the raw gender wage gap to include factors such as education help explain the gap? Maybe it is not as big of a problem as it seems?"
Click to expand...
The article says a lot, but with almost no reference to support its assertions. It doesn't explain where the initial 80 or 83% gap come from. Like I mentioned earlier, the way the pay gap was originally calculated was by taking the total wages earned by each gender and then dividing it by the total full time employees in that gender. You're starting with flawed data from the beginning because it's true that men are more likely to work overtime and more likely to get into higher paying industries.
 
Here's your reference to support the assertions in the article linked. If you want more of a source of reference than the Bureau of Labor statistics... you'd probably find fault in it as well...1739638073739.png
 
superrific said:
Read the fucking link I provided, which refers to a great deal of research. What the fuck is wrong with you, seriously? The world doesn't work according to your suppositions. Here you are, making the long-discredited Becker argument, and you don't even know what that means. You have no understanding of any labor market models that clearly demonstrate the possibility and indeed probability of persistent discrimination in employment markets. And there's data, and you could read it, but instead you prefer to mouth off like Elon Musk's kid. Except at least Elon's kid was directionally correct.

It is so sickening to read this utter tripe, deciding that the world must be just how they want it to be and dismissing all evidence to the contrary. It's not an opinion. It's just indigestion. What you feel deep down in your gut, with common sense, and duh, duh, derp let's accuse all experts of ignorance and celebrate morons whose eyes are glued to a boob tube every night, ingesting and absorbing eagerly the propaganda so easily devised to fool you.
Click to expand...
I read the link. It doesn't show anything, either way. It's not research. It has very sources to support its claims. It's honestly kind of crap.
 
UNCatTech said:
Then you link an article that clearly mentions the wage gap. :cool:
Click to expand...
Like I said previously, there hasn't been anything definitively showing a wage gap exists. The original basis for the gap was inherently flawed and no actual study, not just an article spouting unsupported numbers, has shown a wage gap exists. I'm more than happy to change my views, but starting with the assumption of a wage gap, based on flawed assumptions, isn't the way to do it.
 
ZenMode said:
The article says a lot, but with almost no reference to support its assertions. It doesn't explain where the initial 80 or 83% gap come from. Like I mentioned earlier, the way the pay gap was originally calculated was by taking the total wages earned by each gender and then dividing it by the total full time employees in that gender. You're starting with flawed data from the beginning because it's true that men are more likely to work overtime and more likely to get into higher paying industries.
Click to expand...
"... almost no reference to support its assertions."
B.S. Of course it does. The article goes to great lengths to do just that. The entire piece examines the evidence surrounding the gender pay gap, both in the literature and through their own data analyses.

But we know you didn't read the entire piece or you wouldn't have said something so ignorant as "The article says a lot, but with almost no reference to support its assertions." What a stupid and ignorant comment. The article is literally riddled with references and supporting facts.
 
Centerpiece said:
But we know you didn't read the entire piece or you wouldn't have said something so ignorant as "The article says a lot, but with almost no reference to support its assertions." What a stupid and ignorant comment. The article is literally riddled with references and supporting facts.
Click to expand...
It's long. I didn't read the whole thing. But anyone with any experience with research knows exactly where to find the references. They are always at the end under the heading "REFERENCES" It's not like law review articles where the sources are put at the bottom of the page in a footnote.

Nobody who has ever read at least two research papers would be unaware of where the references are located. This assclown has never read a single study in his life.

These posters have no idea how much ignorance they project in small details such as this. It's like when Hicox gave himself away asking for drei glaser. There are so many markers these fools have no clue about.
 
Centerpiece said:
Here's your reference to support the assertions in the article linked. If you want more of a source of reference than the Bureau of Labor statistics... you'd probably find fault in it as well...1739638073739.png
Click to expand...
Without having a link there is a 99% chance that this is just based solely on total wages earned, divided by total workers. That doesn't account for any variables which in this case a extremely important.
 
superrific said:
LOL. You didn't read it. 65 references and research papers listed, by my count.
Click to expand...
They didn't show that within the article. If you reference a statistic, you should have the footnote, or whatever it's called next to the statistic.
 
ZenMode said:
They didn't show that within the article. If you reference a statistic, you should have the footnote, or whatever it's called next to the statistic.
Click to expand...
So now, to save face, you're trying to tell professional policy analysts how to write policy papers and blogs? LOL. LOL. LOL. You fucked up.

BTW, the reason they don't put the statistic next to the reference is that it's a huge expenditure of time and effort to sort out just which data goes with each paper. I know this having written publications myself. But you see, as a law professor, I had tons of unpaid labor -- i.e. the law review staff. I also had unpaid research assistants, or very poorly paid ones (depending on whether they do it for $$ or credit). The EPI and other policy researchers do not have that luxury. Economic policy is not a gravy train.

Plus, in a scientific paper, it's not necessary. Readers who are capable of understanding the references -- that's not you, btw -- can easily find what they want from the paper headings.
 
There’s a reason why the intellectual dark web folks love to debate each other. They get clowned by everyone else.
 
ZenMode said:
Without having a link there is a 99% chance that this is just based solely on total wages earned, divided by total workers. That doesn't account for any variables which in this case a extremely important.
Click to expand...
Says the guy who knows so little he doesn't even know where to look for references. Hey arrogant Dunning-Kruger poster child, the professionals in this space are way, way, way ahead of you. You apparently think you can do their jobs better than they can. Sure, you don't have a degree, and are completely math-illiterate, and have trouble with reading comprehension, and get all your information from the boob tube, but why let that stop you?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top