Why Did Republicans Abandon Conservatism?

[Centerpiece]

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...

 

[ZenMode]

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.

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.

 

[ZenMode]

Then you link an article that clearly mentions the wage gap.

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.

 

[superrific]

The article says a lot, but with almost no reference to support its assertions.

There are literally more than 60 references listed at the bottom of the page. Most are published studies. Do you ever tire of being utterly wrong?

 

[superrific]

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.

LOL. You didn't read it. 65 references and research papers listed, by my count.

 

[Centerpiece]

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.

"... 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.

 

[superrific]

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.

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.

 

[ZenMode]

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...

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.

 

[ZenMode]

LOL. You didn't read it. 65 references and research papers listed, by my count.

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.

 

[superrific]

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.

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.

 

[superrific]

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.

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?

 

[Healing]

This might be the most absurd bosiding hill-to-die-upon I’ve seen in quite a while.

Effectively, the data and analysis is hard for me to read, so my unsubstantiated position is supported?

 

[ZenMode]

LOL. You didn't read it. 65 references and research papers listed, by my count.

I didn't read the whole thing. I'm guessing you didn't either because it talks about important variables. Start reading at "How do work experience, schedules, and motherhood affect the gender wage gap?" and you'll find that the biggest factor in lower wages has nothing to do with a nefarious scheme to under pay women. It has to do with choices women make related to life priorities. My wife didn't work for 10 years while she raised our kids. She's a teacher who would spend significant portions of her weekends, before kids, in her classroom getting things ready for the upcoming week. Even after she went back to work, she almost never worked on weekends because she wanted to be home with the kids.

Men, as the article references, are more likely to be available for extra hours. They are more reliable because it's often the woman who stays home with sick kids or decided to work part time due to priorities. Yes, more available and reliable employees are are more likely to a) work more overtime, b) make more money and c) be promoted.

I mean, it's all right there in your article. There's no collusion to underpay women. Men and women are generally different, have different roles and priorities.

So what? People make decisions. We have very smart MALES, who have been offered promotions and turn them down because they want to work their 8-4 job, punch out and go coach their kids flag football team without distractions.

They don't want my job which involves being up, sometimes until 4am, to roll-out, test and troubleshoot firewall changes or involves working sometimes ridiculous hours because you have to train someone in Krakow or Dublin.

 

[superrific]

There’s a reason why the intellectual dark web folks love to debate each other. They get clowned by everyone else.

I don't know why these fools try to argue with me about these issues. I almost always know the topic (or else I wouldn't be talking about it, and if I don't, I admit that), and I always bring receipts.

It's like when people who played some high school basketball think they can beat NBA players. They don't see how much time, prep and work goes into being even the worst NBA player. They just see a guy like Brian Scalabrine struggle to guard Lebron James and figure he has no game at all.



I probably read more policy in a week than these posters have read in their lives. Maybe not at the moment -- it might take me a month or so, but when I was teaching, absolutely.

 

[ZenMode]

I didn't read the whole thing. I'm guessing you didn't either because it talks about important variables. Start reading at "How do work experience, schedules, and motherhood affect the gender wage gap?" and you'll find that the biggest factor in lower wages has nothing to do with a nefarious scheme to under pay women. It has to do with choices women make related to life priorities. My wife didn't work for 10 years while she raised our kids. She's a teacher who would spend significant portions of her weekends, before kids, in her classroom getting things ready for the upcoming week. Even after she went back to work, she almost never worked on weekends because she wanted to be home with the kids.

Men, as the article references, are more likely to be available for extra hours. They are more reliable because it's often the woman who stays home with sick kids or decided to work part time due to priorities. Yes, more available and reliable employees are are more likely to a) work more overtime, b) make more money and c) be promoted.

I mean, it's all right there in your article. There's no collusion to underpay women. Men and women are generally different, have different roles and priorities.

So what? People make decisions. We have very smart MALES, who have been offered promotions and turn them down because they want to work their 8-4 job, punch out and go coach their kids flag football team without distractions.

They don't want my job which involves being up, sometimes until 4am, to roll-out, test and troubleshoot firewall changes or involves working sometimes ridiculous hours because you have to train someone in Krakow or Dublin.

@superrific

So, yes, you were right. There is a gender pay gap....and it's perfectly explainable and understandable given difference between men and women and their choices/roles.

 

[superrific]

∆∆∆ In other words ∆∆∆∆

Yes, there is a gender pay gap and it exists because, surprise!, genders are different in ways that directly impact their wage earning ability, not because

@superrific

So, yes, you were right. There is a gender pay gap....and it's perfectly explainable and understandable given difference between men and women and their choices/roles.

LOL. I'm not doing this with you any more. I have no time to bandy crooked words with a witless worm. Suffice it to say, none of it is explainable by differences between sexes or genders. You just made that up.

 

[ZenMode]

LOL. I'm not doing this with you any more. I have no time to bandy crooked words with a witless worm. Suffice it to say, none of it is explainable by differences between sexes or genders. You just made that up.

Well...you posted the wrong article, apparently, because that's precisely what YOUR article says.

 

[superrific]

Well...you posted the wrong article, apparently, because that's precisely what YOUR article says.

No, it does not say that. I was, of course, referring to the unexplained portion of the pay gap. You know, as discussed here:

"As noted, the unexplained, or residual, portion of the pay gap is the difference in pay between men and women who are observationally identical. Some argue that one of the difficult-to-measure factors is differences in productivity that are unrelated to influences such as educational level and experience. Some argue that women’s disproportionate childcare responsibilities may make them less productive.

Studies that have directly explored worker productivity show little evidence of a motherhood penalty on productivity. . . In fact, research on impressions of women in the workplace suggests women’s productivity might in fact be systematically underestimated"

Not going to be baited into further bullshit. Do what you do.

 

[ZenMode]

No, it does not say that. I was, of course, referring to the unexplained portion of the pay gap. You know, as discussed here:

"As noted, the unexplained, or residual, portion of the pay gap is the difference in pay between men and women who are observationally identical. Some argue that one of the difficult-to-measure factors is differences in productivity that are unrelated to influences such as educational level and experience. Some argue that women’s disproportionate childcare responsibilities may make them less productive.

Studies that have directly explored worker productivity show little evidence of a motherhood penalty on productivity. . . In fact, research on impressions of women in the workplace suggests women’s productivity might in fact be systematically underestimated"

Not going to be baited into further bullshit. Do what you do.

You are now pivoting from realities of your article to research on productivity. Maybe productive is equalizing, especially due to the recent normalization of working at home, but that doesn't mean that new norms immediately result in wage gaps narrowing.

Again, YOUR article breaks down the reasons for the pay gap and I didn't see misogyny in there. The reasons for the pay gap make sense In a world where businesses are trying to maximize performance and profitability.

There's no effective way to perfectly measure many variables in this situation because so many are related to subjective measures. You can't accurately measure how leaving the work force, as mothers tend to do, impacts future wages. You can't measure personality differences between men and women as it relates to drive to get into management. You can quantify how being unreliable due to sick kids or school breaks impacts promotions and pay and pretending to do so, for political benefit, is a scam by Dems.

 

[Duke Mu]

Buckley and Reagan are rolling in their graves.