|
Although this thread does not function under the same strict guidelines as the USPMT, it is still a general practice on TL to provide a source with an explanation on why it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion. Failure to do so will result in a mod action. |
On September 29 2015 20:20 Faust852 wrote: I thought we would stop talking about this subject because it's not related to the thread. If you want to talk about the gender inequality do it in another thread where I'll be glad to participate though. I was merely replying to responses to my posts, but like I said just send me a PM if anyone wants to discuss this further.
On September 29 2015 20:34 Silvanel wrote: And who claims culture has no part in it? Noone with a little senses. At least in this context (for broader context see below). The discussion is always pure culture vs biology+culture. Discriminating between "cultural" and "biological" influences on our actions and choices seems like pointless endeavor, how one would approach such problem? Surely You can see that even if 0,1% of our choices have biological fundations (or even factors affecting them) than that has been the case always for homosapiens and culture istelf have biological component.
The argument above is however part of the discussion in a very narrow context. The fundement of entire culture is biology (as biology- brain chemistry and such predate culture). The oposition between culture and biology is therefore an illusion. Tthe article you posted misrepresents data and bases its claim of a relationship between biology and career choices on faulty evidence. At this point, there is no scientific basis for the assertion that supposed biological cognitive differences between men and women explain differing career choices, while there are volumes of scientific studies demonstrating a direct influence of cultural factors such as (but not limited to) gender stereotypes and gender norms. If you want to discuss this further, just send me a PM.
|
On September 29 2015 19:13 kwizach wrote:Show nested quote +On September 29 2015 18:44 Faust852 wrote:On September 29 2015 18:35 kwizach wrote:On September 29 2015 18:14 Faust852 wrote: and the factually untrue about the difference in earning between sexes. What exactly is supposed to be factually untrue about the differences in earnings between sexes? Women tends to work less hours, and job that pay less. For instance, the STEM representation of women is laughtable. Anyway a bit of research should be enough, if you want some ask again because I don't have much time right now, so the only thing I'll say is that if women were trully paid 23% less for the same job, why companies keep recruting male and not female ? Especially seeing how greedy they are. Yeah, those are the usual fallacious arguments of the inequality deniers that do not actually take into account the reality of the differences in earnings between the sexes. First of all, studies have shown that overall there remains a pay gap between men and women for the same jobs, even taking into account various factors like the number of hours worked, the qualifications, etc. ( see for example the Invest in women, invest in America - A Comprehensive Review of Women In the U.S. Economy report by the U.S. Congress' Joint Economic Committee). It's not at 23%, but a difference remains, some of which is attributable to gender discrimination (for example in the hiring process). And since you mention STEM jobs, here's another study which shows gender pay disparity in STEM jobs even after controlling for hours, age, experience, education, etc. Second, mentioning the statistical differences in occupations between men and women is not at all an argument against the idea that there are differences in earnings between the two that need to be addressed. The point is precisely that social norms and representations about both genders still permeate our societies and contribute to the choices made by individuals with regards to their studies and careers. The pay gap is therefore very real, and it needs to be addressed by targeting both gender discrimination at (and to access) work and the cultural factors that play a role in the professional trajectories of men and women. This is pretty off-topic, though, so if you'd like to know more about these issues and discuss them further you can send me a PM. He is not wrong tho, 23 % is a complete lie. It's more like between 6 and 9 %, and if you only take the latest generations that entered in the labor market, the difference is almost inexistant - but what exist is higher inequalities between women, that now beautifully mimick the competitiveness of the male pack, because thankfully we freed ourselves from the male domination through the almighty market).
On September 29 2015 14:34 Incognoto wrote:Show nested quote +On September 29 2015 14:09 kwizach wrote:On September 29 2015 13:46 LegalLord wrote: Knee-jerk emotional reactions don't make for good public policy. Logical and viable solutions beat a poorly considered "we must help omfgz" reaction as some advocate. Knee-jerk emotional reactions don't make for good public policy. Humane, logical and viable solutions beat a poorly considered "they took our jobz", "they're so many omfgz, muslim invasion" reaction. There are many reasons that this is a humanitarian crisis, blatantly ignoring that it's a problem is absolutely silly. There is no golden fix to these situations either, no silver bandage. Each European country has a limited capacity to accommodate refugees in the right conditions, don't ignore that. Don't ignore either that there are a number of people who are not legitimate refugees. It's easy to be snarky but it's much harder to come up with real solutions and have a stance which makes realistic sense. That's what LegalLord was saying, as poorly worded as it was. The problem is not about capacity : Europe have the capacity to welcome way more than the current wave. The problem is of public policies : some people seem to believe that just opening the borders is enough for those people to instantly participate and be autonomous (maybe they will learn the language on the things they find while scavanging garbage for food ?). This is such a ridiculous view when you actually see that 25 millions people within europe, who are europeans (and thus already integrated, knowing the right language, etc.), are unemployed and thus not entirely autonomous. Welcoming those people in a good manner would need from europe a huge investment but that investment in itself is politically impossible since we already refused to invest for the people that already live in europe and suffer from the current economic situation, like the greeks, but above nations, all the unemployed in europe (5 million in France alone). But it's better to do it like the politicians and the believers : don't let logic and reason blurr the picture, it's better to be blind and refuse to see the storm ahead (but don't forget to cry when the national front win elections).
|
On September 29 2015 21:21 WhiteDog wrote:Show nested quote +On September 29 2015 19:13 kwizach wrote:On September 29 2015 18:44 Faust852 wrote:On September 29 2015 18:35 kwizach wrote:On September 29 2015 18:14 Faust852 wrote: and the factually untrue about the difference in earning between sexes. What exactly is supposed to be factually untrue about the differences in earnings between sexes? Women tends to work less hours, and job that pay less. For instance, the STEM representation of women is laughtable. Anyway a bit of research should be enough, if you want some ask again because I don't have much time right now, so the only thing I'll say is that if women were trully paid 23% less for the same job, why companies keep recruting male and not female ? Especially seeing how greedy they are. Yeah, those are the usual fallacious arguments of the inequality deniers that do not actually take into account the reality of the differences in earnings between the sexes. First of all, studies have shown that overall there remains a pay gap between men and women for the same jobs, even taking into account various factors like the number of hours worked, the qualifications, etc. ( see for example the Invest in women, invest in America - A Comprehensive Review of Women In the U.S. Economy report by the U.S. Congress' Joint Economic Committee). It's not at 23%, but a difference remains, some of which is attributable to gender discrimination (for example in the hiring process). And since you mention STEM jobs, here's another study which shows gender pay disparity in STEM jobs even after controlling for hours, age, experience, education, etc. Second, mentioning the statistical differences in occupations between men and women is not at all an argument against the idea that there are differences in earnings between the two that need to be addressed. The point is precisely that social norms and representations about both genders still permeate our societies and contribute to the choices made by individuals with regards to their studies and careers. The pay gap is therefore very real, and it needs to be addressed by targeting both gender discrimination at (and to access) work and the cultural factors that play a role in the professional trajectories of men and women. This is pretty off-topic, though, so if you'd like to know more about these issues and discuss them further you can send me a PM. He is not wrong tho, 23 % is a complete lie. It's more like between 6 and 9 %, and if you only take the latest generations that entered in the labor market, the difference is almost inexistant - but what exist is higher inequalities between women, that now beautifully mimick the competitiveness of the male, because thankfully we free ourselves from the male domination through the almighty market). Except the 23% is not a complete lie at all, since it is the reality of the overall multidimensional pay gap between full-time working women and full-time working men. Controlling for occupation, schooling, experience, region, minority status, marital status, etc., does reduce the pay gap, but it is often still above 6-9%, and even sometimes above 15-20% (and like I mentioned earlier, differences in occupations are to be addressed as well anyway). With regards to your last point, I do regard women's accession to the labor market as individuals as a positive social change in terms of the autonomy this has given women (as opposed to dependency on the husband). This is not akin to idolizing the market or claiming that financial independence is the solution to every other type of inequality.
|
On September 29 2015 21:48 kwizach wrote:Show nested quote +On September 29 2015 21:21 WhiteDog wrote:On September 29 2015 19:13 kwizach wrote:On September 29 2015 18:44 Faust852 wrote:On September 29 2015 18:35 kwizach wrote:On September 29 2015 18:14 Faust852 wrote: and the factually untrue about the difference in earning between sexes. What exactly is supposed to be factually untrue about the differences in earnings between sexes? Women tends to work less hours, and job that pay less. For instance, the STEM representation of women is laughtable. Anyway a bit of research should be enough, if you want some ask again because I don't have much time right now, so the only thing I'll say is that if women were trully paid 23% less for the same job, why companies keep recruting male and not female ? Especially seeing how greedy they are. Yeah, those are the usual fallacious arguments of the inequality deniers that do not actually take into account the reality of the differences in earnings between the sexes. First of all, studies have shown that overall there remains a pay gap between men and women for the same jobs, even taking into account various factors like the number of hours worked, the qualifications, etc. ( see for example the Invest in women, invest in America - A Comprehensive Review of Women In the U.S. Economy report by the U.S. Congress' Joint Economic Committee). It's not at 23%, but a difference remains, some of which is attributable to gender discrimination (for example in the hiring process). And since you mention STEM jobs, here's another study which shows gender pay disparity in STEM jobs even after controlling for hours, age, experience, education, etc. Second, mentioning the statistical differences in occupations between men and women is not at all an argument against the idea that there are differences in earnings between the two that need to be addressed. The point is precisely that social norms and representations about both genders still permeate our societies and contribute to the choices made by individuals with regards to their studies and careers. The pay gap is therefore very real, and it needs to be addressed by targeting both gender discrimination at (and to access) work and the cultural factors that play a role in the professional trajectories of men and women. This is pretty off-topic, though, so if you'd like to know more about these issues and discuss them further you can send me a PM. He is not wrong tho, 23 % is a complete lie. It's more like between 6 and 9 %, and if you only take the latest generations that entered in the labor market, the difference is almost inexistant - but what exist is higher inequalities between women, that now beautifully mimick the competitiveness of the male, because thankfully we free ourselves from the male domination through the almighty market). Except the 23% is not a complete lie at all, since it is the reality of the overall multidimensional pay gap between full-time working women and full-time working men. Controlling for occupation, schooling, experience, region, minority status, marital status, etc., does reduce the pay gap, but it is often still above 6-9%, and even sometimes above 15-20% (and like I mentioned earlier, differences in occupations are to be addressed as well anyway). With regards to your last point, I do regard women's accession to the labor market as individuals as a positive social change in terms of the autonomy this has given women (as opposed to dependency on the husband). This is not akin to idolizing the market or claiming that financial independence is the solution to every other type of inequality. Everything equal it is between 6 and 9 % (but we can agree that the everything equal is not always a good abstraction). The problem is that you consider that accessing to labor is a gain in autonomy everything equal (for every women whatever their social class, race or generation) : it is only for a part of the population that we categorize as women. As the rising inequalities within this very category suggest, for a part of that population accessing the labor market is/was a necessity that oftentime is the result of a degrading situation (and thus a higher dependancy toward labor income rather than a gain in autonomy toward the big bad patriarch).
|
On September 29 2015 21:59 WhiteDog wrote:Show nested quote +On September 29 2015 21:48 kwizach wrote:On September 29 2015 21:21 WhiteDog wrote:On September 29 2015 19:13 kwizach wrote:On September 29 2015 18:44 Faust852 wrote:On September 29 2015 18:35 kwizach wrote:On September 29 2015 18:14 Faust852 wrote: and the factually untrue about the difference in earning between sexes. What exactly is supposed to be factually untrue about the differences in earnings between sexes? Women tends to work less hours, and job that pay less. For instance, the STEM representation of women is laughtable. Anyway a bit of research should be enough, if you want some ask again because I don't have much time right now, so the only thing I'll say is that if women were trully paid 23% less for the same job, why companies keep recruting male and not female ? Especially seeing how greedy they are. Yeah, those are the usual fallacious arguments of the inequality deniers that do not actually take into account the reality of the differences in earnings between the sexes. First of all, studies have shown that overall there remains a pay gap between men and women for the same jobs, even taking into account various factors like the number of hours worked, the qualifications, etc. ( see for example the Invest in women, invest in America - A Comprehensive Review of Women In the U.S. Economy report by the U.S. Congress' Joint Economic Committee). It's not at 23%, but a difference remains, some of which is attributable to gender discrimination (for example in the hiring process). And since you mention STEM jobs, here's another study which shows gender pay disparity in STEM jobs even after controlling for hours, age, experience, education, etc. Second, mentioning the statistical differences in occupations between men and women is not at all an argument against the idea that there are differences in earnings between the two that need to be addressed. The point is precisely that social norms and representations about both genders still permeate our societies and contribute to the choices made by individuals with regards to their studies and careers. The pay gap is therefore very real, and it needs to be addressed by targeting both gender discrimination at (and to access) work and the cultural factors that play a role in the professional trajectories of men and women. This is pretty off-topic, though, so if you'd like to know more about these issues and discuss them further you can send me a PM. He is not wrong tho, 23 % is a complete lie. It's more like between 6 and 9 %, and if you only take the latest generations that entered in the labor market, the difference is almost inexistant - but what exist is higher inequalities between women, that now beautifully mimick the competitiveness of the male, because thankfully we free ourselves from the male domination through the almighty market). Except the 23% is not a complete lie at all, since it is the reality of the overall multidimensional pay gap between full-time working women and full-time working men. Controlling for occupation, schooling, experience, region, minority status, marital status, etc., does reduce the pay gap, but it is often still above 6-9%, and even sometimes above 15-20% (and like I mentioned earlier, differences in occupations are to be addressed as well anyway). With regards to your last point, I do regard women's accession to the labor market as individuals as a positive social change in terms of the autonomy this has given women (as opposed to dependency on the husband). This is not akin to idolizing the market or claiming that financial independence is the solution to every other type of inequality. Everything equal it is between 6 and 9 % (but we can agree that the everything equal is not always a good abstraction). It is frequently above 6-9%, as indicated by numerous studies on the topic (some of which are referenced on pp. 9-10 of the Joint Economic Committee report I linked to earlier).
On September 29 2015 21:59 WhiteDog wrote: The problem is that you consider that accessing to labor is a gain in autonomy everything equal (for every women whatever their social class, race or generation) : it is only for a part of the population that we categorize as women. As the rising inequalities within this very category suggest, for a part of that population accessing the labor market is/was a necessity that oftentime is the result of a degrading situation (and thus a higher dependancy toward labor income rather than a gain in autonomy toward the big bad patriarch). "All other things being equal" does not mean that the positive impact of accessing the labor market is evenly distributed, or even relevant to everyone. It is merely a way to explain that we are talking about the impact of a single independent variable irrespective of other variables which can also impact the dependent variable (the well-being, or the autonomy of women). I never said that every woman benefited equally from accession to the labor market, or even that every woman was concerned, merely that overall it was a positive step with regards to the autonomy of women with respect to their husbands/families.
|
In the Catalan voting, almost 200.000 catalans who live outside the country were unable to vote due to the spanish government "screwing up", who then used the usual burocratic mistake excuse.
Considering how it's commonly accepted that people outside the country are high on the independence movement, the fact that it's not the first time this happens and that the voting was scheduled so many months ago (allowing the government time to get shit done), it's obvious that their rights are being abused and the excuses are bs.
|
United Kingdom13774 Posts
On September 29 2015 18:51 xM(Z wrote: @Faust852 don't start it with kwizach, imo. I am of the same opinion on that front.
I would be surprised if any sane government would allow its own people to secede by vote. That is definitely not how a nation-state works. The costs of independence for small splinter nations are very real, while the benefits ("self-determination" that really doesn't exist because of the effect of spheres of influence) are imaginary.
|
If the costs of splinter nations are so high and the benefits are non-existent, then why are some of the smaller nations in Europe so successful? Switzerland profited a lot from its independence throughout the centuries, and I don't see how Austria would be much better off within Germany, or Luxembourg within France, or Finland within Russia or Sweden.
|
On September 29 2015 23:18 LegalLord wrote:Show nested quote +On September 29 2015 18:51 xM(Z wrote: @Faust852 don't start it with kwizach, imo. I am of the same opinion on that front. I would be surprised if any sane government would allow its own people to secede by vote. That is definitely not how a nation-state works. The costs of independence for small splinter nations are very real, while the benefits ("self-determination" that really doesn't exist because of the effect of spheres of influence) are imaginary.
Depends how the Country is run.
If you are in a centralistic country (Spain/France) suddenly being able to actually govern yourself can obviously have big benefits if your Region actually has a working industry/infrastructure. If your in a country with allready strong federalistic tendencies the benefits (and changes) will probably be not that great.
If your piss poor and constantly get Money pumpet into by your central goverment... Well, then you probably better don't secede .
|
On September 29 2015 22:33 kwizach wrote:Show nested quote +On September 29 2015 21:59 WhiteDog wrote:On September 29 2015 21:48 kwizach wrote:On September 29 2015 21:21 WhiteDog wrote:On September 29 2015 19:13 kwizach wrote:On September 29 2015 18:44 Faust852 wrote:On September 29 2015 18:35 kwizach wrote:On September 29 2015 18:14 Faust852 wrote: and the factually untrue about the difference in earning between sexes. What exactly is supposed to be factually untrue about the differences in earnings between sexes? Women tends to work less hours, and job that pay less. For instance, the STEM representation of women is laughtable. Anyway a bit of research should be enough, if you want some ask again because I don't have much time right now, so the only thing I'll say is that if women were trully paid 23% less for the same job, why companies keep recruting male and not female ? Especially seeing how greedy they are. Yeah, those are the usual fallacious arguments of the inequality deniers that do not actually take into account the reality of the differences in earnings between the sexes. First of all, studies have shown that overall there remains a pay gap between men and women for the same jobs, even taking into account various factors like the number of hours worked, the qualifications, etc. ( see for example the Invest in women, invest in America - A Comprehensive Review of Women In the U.S. Economy report by the U.S. Congress' Joint Economic Committee). It's not at 23%, but a difference remains, some of which is attributable to gender discrimination (for example in the hiring process). And since you mention STEM jobs, here's another study which shows gender pay disparity in STEM jobs even after controlling for hours, age, experience, education, etc. Second, mentioning the statistical differences in occupations between men and women is not at all an argument against the idea that there are differences in earnings between the two that need to be addressed. The point is precisely that social norms and representations about both genders still permeate our societies and contribute to the choices made by individuals with regards to their studies and careers. The pay gap is therefore very real, and it needs to be addressed by targeting both gender discrimination at (and to access) work and the cultural factors that play a role in the professional trajectories of men and women. This is pretty off-topic, though, so if you'd like to know more about these issues and discuss them further you can send me a PM. He is not wrong tho, 23 % is a complete lie. It's more like between 6 and 9 %, and if you only take the latest generations that entered in the labor market, the difference is almost inexistant - but what exist is higher inequalities between women, that now beautifully mimick the competitiveness of the male, because thankfully we free ourselves from the male domination through the almighty market). Except the 23% is not a complete lie at all, since it is the reality of the overall multidimensional pay gap between full-time working women and full-time working men. Controlling for occupation, schooling, experience, region, minority status, marital status, etc., does reduce the pay gap, but it is often still above 6-9%, and even sometimes above 15-20% (and like I mentioned earlier, differences in occupations are to be addressed as well anyway). With regards to your last point, I do regard women's accession to the labor market as individuals as a positive social change in terms of the autonomy this has given women (as opposed to dependency on the husband). This is not akin to idolizing the market or claiming that financial independence is the solution to every other type of inequality. Everything equal it is between 6 and 9 % (but we can agree that the everything equal is not always a good abstraction). It is frequently above 6-9%, as indicated by numerous studies on the topic (some of which are referenced on pp. 9-10 of the Joint Economic Committee report I linked to earlier). Show nested quote +On September 29 2015 21:59 WhiteDog wrote: The problem is that you consider that accessing to labor is a gain in autonomy everything equal (for every women whatever their social class, race or generation) : it is only for a part of the population that we categorize as women. As the rising inequalities within this very category suggest, for a part of that population accessing the labor market is/was a necessity that oftentime is the result of a degrading situation (and thus a higher dependancy toward labor income rather than a gain in autonomy toward the big bad patriarch). "All other things being equal" does not mean that the positive impact of accessing the labor market is evenly distributed, or even relevant to everyone. It is merely a way to explain that we are talking about the impact of a single independent variable irrespective of other variables which can also impact the dependent variable (the well-being, or the autonomy of women). I never said that every woman benefited equally from accession to the labor market, or even that every woman was concerned, merely that overall it was a positive step with regards to the autonomy of women with respect to their husbands/families. Yeah and, to quote a famous article from François Héran "all other things being inequals", the problem is not that the effect is not evenly distributed, but that the effect is heterogene because the group labelled as "women" is heterogene - and does not exist "everything equal" in reality.
|
On the whole VW thing from Reuters-opinions: + Show Spoiler [guy who wrote it] +Reynolds Holding is a Breakingviews columnist who writes from New York about the law in conjunction with Reuters Legal. Before joining Breakingviews, he was a national editorial producer for the Law & Justice Unit at ABC News, a senior writer for Time magazine and the executive editor of Legal Affairs, the first general interest magazine about the law. He spent more than a decade as an investigative reporter and columnist for The San Francisco Chronicle, where he was named a Pulitzer Prize finalist for explanatory writing. Before becoming a journalist, he practiced corporate law at the New York firm of ...
VW tests U.S. enforcers’ fairness to foreign firms
[...]
Yet VW and other foreign corporations have reasons to be wary of Uncle Sam. U.S. criminal fines from 2001 to 2012 were on average more than seven times larger for overseas entities than American firms, according to University of Virginia Law School research. While most U.S. companies settle cases under deferred prosecution agreements and the like, about 80 percent of foreign enterprises prosecuted during the study period were convicted or pleaded guilty. The largest penalty ever in a corporate criminal case was the $8.9 billion levied last year against French bank BNP Paribas for violating U.S. sanctions. [...] That playbook probably helped General Motors avoid criminal charges and negotiate a relatively modest $900 million fine for hiding deadly flaws in ignition switches – $300 million less than Toyota shelled out in 2014 for an accelerator problem that killed fewer people. [...] VW’s timing was also bad. The U.S. Justice Department just said that companies must identify individual wrongdoers to get credit for cooperation. And corporate penalties generally have skyrocketed in recent years. That brings the prospect of both a record fine and the rare spectacle of employees going to prison. Rightly or not, that would provoke accusations of unequal treatment. Given the legal record, U.S. enforcers may need to make examples of a few more homegrown offenders, too. full article: source
It's nothing new, but it does shed some light on why we had two camps on the discussion from last week about how some people (especially from Germany iirc) said it's basicly some kind of convoluted plot versus the guys on the US side who said everything's fine.
I don't think anyone had a problem with what happened. It's just the innitial 18bn that sparked the reaction of it being a joke in direct comparison to other things.
|
On September 30 2015 00:23 WhiteDog wrote:Show nested quote +On September 29 2015 22:33 kwizach wrote:On September 29 2015 21:59 WhiteDog wrote:On September 29 2015 21:48 kwizach wrote:On September 29 2015 21:21 WhiteDog wrote:On September 29 2015 19:13 kwizach wrote:On September 29 2015 18:44 Faust852 wrote:On September 29 2015 18:35 kwizach wrote:On September 29 2015 18:14 Faust852 wrote: and the factually untrue about the difference in earning between sexes. What exactly is supposed to be factually untrue about the differences in earnings between sexes? Women tends to work less hours, and job that pay less. For instance, the STEM representation of women is laughtable. Anyway a bit of research should be enough, if you want some ask again because I don't have much time right now, so the only thing I'll say is that if women were trully paid 23% less for the same job, why companies keep recruting male and not female ? Especially seeing how greedy they are. Yeah, those are the usual fallacious arguments of the inequality deniers that do not actually take into account the reality of the differences in earnings between the sexes. First of all, studies have shown that overall there remains a pay gap between men and women for the same jobs, even taking into account various factors like the number of hours worked, the qualifications, etc. ( see for example the Invest in women, invest in America - A Comprehensive Review of Women In the U.S. Economy report by the U.S. Congress' Joint Economic Committee). It's not at 23%, but a difference remains, some of which is attributable to gender discrimination (for example in the hiring process). And since you mention STEM jobs, here's another study which shows gender pay disparity in STEM jobs even after controlling for hours, age, experience, education, etc. Second, mentioning the statistical differences in occupations between men and women is not at all an argument against the idea that there are differences in earnings between the two that need to be addressed. The point is precisely that social norms and representations about both genders still permeate our societies and contribute to the choices made by individuals with regards to their studies and careers. The pay gap is therefore very real, and it needs to be addressed by targeting both gender discrimination at (and to access) work and the cultural factors that play a role in the professional trajectories of men and women. This is pretty off-topic, though, so if you'd like to know more about these issues and discuss them further you can send me a PM. He is not wrong tho, 23 % is a complete lie. It's more like between 6 and 9 %, and if you only take the latest generations that entered in the labor market, the difference is almost inexistant - but what exist is higher inequalities between women, that now beautifully mimick the competitiveness of the male, because thankfully we free ourselves from the male domination through the almighty market). Except the 23% is not a complete lie at all, since it is the reality of the overall multidimensional pay gap between full-time working women and full-time working men. Controlling for occupation, schooling, experience, region, minority status, marital status, etc., does reduce the pay gap, but it is often still above 6-9%, and even sometimes above 15-20% (and like I mentioned earlier, differences in occupations are to be addressed as well anyway). With regards to your last point, I do regard women's accession to the labor market as individuals as a positive social change in terms of the autonomy this has given women (as opposed to dependency on the husband). This is not akin to idolizing the market or claiming that financial independence is the solution to every other type of inequality. Everything equal it is between 6 and 9 % (but we can agree that the everything equal is not always a good abstraction). It is frequently above 6-9%, as indicated by numerous studies on the topic (some of which are referenced on pp. 9-10 of the Joint Economic Committee report I linked to earlier). On September 29 2015 21:59 WhiteDog wrote: The problem is that you consider that accessing to labor is a gain in autonomy everything equal (for every women whatever their social class, race or generation) : it is only for a part of the population that we categorize as women. As the rising inequalities within this very category suggest, for a part of that population accessing the labor market is/was a necessity that oftentime is the result of a degrading situation (and thus a higher dependancy toward labor income rather than a gain in autonomy toward the big bad patriarch). "All other things being equal" does not mean that the positive impact of accessing the labor market is evenly distributed, or even relevant to everyone. It is merely a way to explain that we are talking about the impact of a single independent variable irrespective of other variables which can also impact the dependent variable (the well-being, or the autonomy of women). I never said that every woman benefited equally from accession to the labor market, or even that every woman was concerned, merely that overall it was a positive step with regards to the autonomy of women with respect to their husbands/families. Yeah and, to quote a famous article from François Héran "all other things being inequals", the problem is not that the effect is not evenly distributed, but that the effect is heterogene because the group labelled as "women" is heterogene - and does not exist "everything equal" in reality. We're going to have to disagree on your interpretation of Héran's article, since he does not criticize or oppose the "all other things being equal" method (in statistics or situational testing). I'm not sure why you're telling me that "everything being equal" does not exist in reality -- the point is that the accession of women to the labor market was still overall a positive step with regards to their autonomization, regardless of its heterogeneous effects.
|
On September 30 2015 01:18 kwizach wrote:Show nested quote +On September 30 2015 00:23 WhiteDog wrote:On September 29 2015 22:33 kwizach wrote:On September 29 2015 21:59 WhiteDog wrote:On September 29 2015 21:48 kwizach wrote:On September 29 2015 21:21 WhiteDog wrote:On September 29 2015 19:13 kwizach wrote:On September 29 2015 18:44 Faust852 wrote:On September 29 2015 18:35 kwizach wrote:On September 29 2015 18:14 Faust852 wrote: and the factually untrue about the difference in earning between sexes. What exactly is supposed to be factually untrue about the differences in earnings between sexes? Women tends to work less hours, and job that pay less. For instance, the STEM representation of women is laughtable. Anyway a bit of research should be enough, if you want some ask again because I don't have much time right now, so the only thing I'll say is that if women were trully paid 23% less for the same job, why companies keep recruting male and not female ? Especially seeing how greedy they are. Yeah, those are the usual fallacious arguments of the inequality deniers that do not actually take into account the reality of the differences in earnings between the sexes. First of all, studies have shown that overall there remains a pay gap between men and women for the same jobs, even taking into account various factors like the number of hours worked, the qualifications, etc. ( see for example the Invest in women, invest in America - A Comprehensive Review of Women In the U.S. Economy report by the U.S. Congress' Joint Economic Committee). It's not at 23%, but a difference remains, some of which is attributable to gender discrimination (for example in the hiring process). And since you mention STEM jobs, here's another study which shows gender pay disparity in STEM jobs even after controlling for hours, age, experience, education, etc. Second, mentioning the statistical differences in occupations between men and women is not at all an argument against the idea that there are differences in earnings between the two that need to be addressed. The point is precisely that social norms and representations about both genders still permeate our societies and contribute to the choices made by individuals with regards to their studies and careers. The pay gap is therefore very real, and it needs to be addressed by targeting both gender discrimination at (and to access) work and the cultural factors that play a role in the professional trajectories of men and women. This is pretty off-topic, though, so if you'd like to know more about these issues and discuss them further you can send me a PM. He is not wrong tho, 23 % is a complete lie. It's more like between 6 and 9 %, and if you only take the latest generations that entered in the labor market, the difference is almost inexistant - but what exist is higher inequalities between women, that now beautifully mimick the competitiveness of the male, because thankfully we free ourselves from the male domination through the almighty market). Except the 23% is not a complete lie at all, since it is the reality of the overall multidimensional pay gap between full-time working women and full-time working men. Controlling for occupation, schooling, experience, region, minority status, marital status, etc., does reduce the pay gap, but it is often still above 6-9%, and even sometimes above 15-20% (and like I mentioned earlier, differences in occupations are to be addressed as well anyway). With regards to your last point, I do regard women's accession to the labor market as individuals as a positive social change in terms of the autonomy this has given women (as opposed to dependency on the husband). This is not akin to idolizing the market or claiming that financial independence is the solution to every other type of inequality. Everything equal it is between 6 and 9 % (but we can agree that the everything equal is not always a good abstraction). It is frequently above 6-9%, as indicated by numerous studies on the topic (some of which are referenced on pp. 9-10 of the Joint Economic Committee report I linked to earlier). On September 29 2015 21:59 WhiteDog wrote: The problem is that you consider that accessing to labor is a gain in autonomy everything equal (for every women whatever their social class, race or generation) : it is only for a part of the population that we categorize as women. As the rising inequalities within this very category suggest, for a part of that population accessing the labor market is/was a necessity that oftentime is the result of a degrading situation (and thus a higher dependancy toward labor income rather than a gain in autonomy toward the big bad patriarch). "All other things being equal" does not mean that the positive impact of accessing the labor market is evenly distributed, or even relevant to everyone. It is merely a way to explain that we are talking about the impact of a single independent variable irrespective of other variables which can also impact the dependent variable (the well-being, or the autonomy of women). I never said that every woman benefited equally from accession to the labor market, or even that every woman was concerned, merely that overall it was a positive step with regards to the autonomy of women with respect to their husbands/families. Yeah and, to quote a famous article from François Héran "all other things being inequals", the problem is not that the effect is not evenly distributed, but that the effect is heterogene because the group labelled as "women" is heterogene - and does not exist "everything equal" in reality. We're going to have to disagree on your interpretation of Héran's article, since he does not criticize or oppose the "all other things being equal" method (in statistics or situational testing). I'm not sure why you're telling me that "everything being equal" does not exist in reality -- the point is that the accession of women to the labor market was still overall a positive step with regards to their autonomization, regardless of its heterogeneous effects. Héran is clearly pointing out the limit of statistics measures - and specifically the everything equal method - to understand the social reality ( he points out, for exemple, the abstraction that is the egalisation of conditions, and the difficulty to actually assess discrimination when there are multiple variables that distinguish people within a certain representative sample - and he is not the first in doing so). Saying that it is "overall" a good thing is hiding a few things, such as the fact that for many people it is not at all an increase in autonomy but rather the replacement of one domination by another, or even sometime a plain and simple degradation of the living conditions.
|
On September 30 2015 04:19 WhiteDog wrote:Show nested quote +On September 30 2015 01:18 kwizach wrote:On September 30 2015 00:23 WhiteDog wrote:On September 29 2015 22:33 kwizach wrote:On September 29 2015 21:59 WhiteDog wrote:On September 29 2015 21:48 kwizach wrote:On September 29 2015 21:21 WhiteDog wrote:On September 29 2015 19:13 kwizach wrote:On September 29 2015 18:44 Faust852 wrote:On September 29 2015 18:35 kwizach wrote: [quote] What exactly is supposed to be factually untrue about the differences in earnings between sexes? Women tends to work less hours, and job that pay less. For instance, the STEM representation of women is laughtable. Anyway a bit of research should be enough, if you want some ask again because I don't have much time right now, so the only thing I'll say is that if women were trully paid 23% less for the same job, why companies keep recruting male and not female ? Especially seeing how greedy they are. Yeah, those are the usual fallacious arguments of the inequality deniers that do not actually take into account the reality of the differences in earnings between the sexes. First of all, studies have shown that overall there remains a pay gap between men and women for the same jobs, even taking into account various factors like the number of hours worked, the qualifications, etc. ( see for example the Invest in women, invest in America - A Comprehensive Review of Women In the U.S. Economy report by the U.S. Congress' Joint Economic Committee). It's not at 23%, but a difference remains, some of which is attributable to gender discrimination (for example in the hiring process). And since you mention STEM jobs, here's another study which shows gender pay disparity in STEM jobs even after controlling for hours, age, experience, education, etc. Second, mentioning the statistical differences in occupations between men and women is not at all an argument against the idea that there are differences in earnings between the two that need to be addressed. The point is precisely that social norms and representations about both genders still permeate our societies and contribute to the choices made by individuals with regards to their studies and careers. The pay gap is therefore very real, and it needs to be addressed by targeting both gender discrimination at (and to access) work and the cultural factors that play a role in the professional trajectories of men and women. This is pretty off-topic, though, so if you'd like to know more about these issues and discuss them further you can send me a PM. He is not wrong tho, 23 % is a complete lie. It's more like between 6 and 9 %, and if you only take the latest generations that entered in the labor market, the difference is almost inexistant - but what exist is higher inequalities between women, that now beautifully mimick the competitiveness of the male, because thankfully we free ourselves from the male domination through the almighty market). Except the 23% is not a complete lie at all, since it is the reality of the overall multidimensional pay gap between full-time working women and full-time working men. Controlling for occupation, schooling, experience, region, minority status, marital status, etc., does reduce the pay gap, but it is often still above 6-9%, and even sometimes above 15-20% (and like I mentioned earlier, differences in occupations are to be addressed as well anyway). With regards to your last point, I do regard women's accession to the labor market as individuals as a positive social change in terms of the autonomy this has given women (as opposed to dependency on the husband). This is not akin to idolizing the market or claiming that financial independence is the solution to every other type of inequality. Everything equal it is between 6 and 9 % (but we can agree that the everything equal is not always a good abstraction). It is frequently above 6-9%, as indicated by numerous studies on the topic (some of which are referenced on pp. 9-10 of the Joint Economic Committee report I linked to earlier). On September 29 2015 21:59 WhiteDog wrote: The problem is that you consider that accessing to labor is a gain in autonomy everything equal (for every women whatever their social class, race or generation) : it is only for a part of the population that we categorize as women. As the rising inequalities within this very category suggest, for a part of that population accessing the labor market is/was a necessity that oftentime is the result of a degrading situation (and thus a higher dependancy toward labor income rather than a gain in autonomy toward the big bad patriarch). "All other things being equal" does not mean that the positive impact of accessing the labor market is evenly distributed, or even relevant to everyone. It is merely a way to explain that we are talking about the impact of a single independent variable irrespective of other variables which can also impact the dependent variable (the well-being, or the autonomy of women). I never said that every woman benefited equally from accession to the labor market, or even that every woman was concerned, merely that overall it was a positive step with regards to the autonomy of women with respect to their husbands/families. Yeah and, to quote a famous article from François Héran "all other things being inequals", the problem is not that the effect is not evenly distributed, but that the effect is heterogene because the group labelled as "women" is heterogene - and does not exist "everything equal" in reality. We're going to have to disagree on your interpretation of Héran's article, since he does not criticize or oppose the "all other things being equal" method (in statistics or situational testing). I'm not sure why you're telling me that "everything being equal" does not exist in reality -- the point is that the accession of women to the labor market was still overall a positive step with regards to their autonomization, regardless of its heterogeneous effects. Héran is clearly pointing out the limit of statistics measures - and specifically the everything equal method - to understand the social reality ( he points out, for exemple, the abstraction that is the egalisation of conditions, and the difficulty to actually assess discrimination when there are multiple variables that distinguish people within a certain representative sample - and he is not the first in doing so). Saying that it is "overall" a good thing is hiding a few things, such as the fact that for many people it is not at all an increase in autonomy but rather the replacement of one domination by another, or even sometime a plain and simple degradation of the living conditions. We must be reading different articles, because Héran clearly explains why the "all other things being equal" method allows one to determine the relevancy of a given independent variable, mentions in passing that it is a bit of a mental experience when used in statistics but still refers to its usefulness, and he concludes the article by supporting one of the points made precisely through the findings of "all other things being equal" statistical and situational tests.
Yes, and the abolition of slavery also had heterogeneous results, and I'm sure something a difficult impact on some individuals. That still doesn't mean it wasn't a very positive step, just like women gaining a degree of independence from their husbands through their accession to the labor market. Or do you think that husbands should be the bread winners and women stay at home/provide domestic support?
|
On September 30 2015 06:11 kwizach wrote:Show nested quote +On September 30 2015 04:19 WhiteDog wrote:On September 30 2015 01:18 kwizach wrote:On September 30 2015 00:23 WhiteDog wrote:On September 29 2015 22:33 kwizach wrote:On September 29 2015 21:59 WhiteDog wrote:On September 29 2015 21:48 kwizach wrote:On September 29 2015 21:21 WhiteDog wrote:On September 29 2015 19:13 kwizach wrote:On September 29 2015 18:44 Faust852 wrote: [quote] Women tends to work less hours, and job that pay less. For instance, the STEM representation of women is laughtable. Anyway a bit of research should be enough, if you want some ask again because I don't have much time right now, so the only thing I'll say is that if women were trully paid 23% less for the same job, why companies keep recruting male and not female ? Especially seeing how greedy they are. Yeah, those are the usual fallacious arguments of the inequality deniers that do not actually take into account the reality of the differences in earnings between the sexes. First of all, studies have shown that overall there remains a pay gap between men and women for the same jobs, even taking into account various factors like the number of hours worked, the qualifications, etc. ( see for example the Invest in women, invest in America - A Comprehensive Review of Women In the U.S. Economy report by the U.S. Congress' Joint Economic Committee). It's not at 23%, but a difference remains, some of which is attributable to gender discrimination (for example in the hiring process). And since you mention STEM jobs, here's another study which shows gender pay disparity in STEM jobs even after controlling for hours, age, experience, education, etc. Second, mentioning the statistical differences in occupations between men and women is not at all an argument against the idea that there are differences in earnings between the two that need to be addressed. The point is precisely that social norms and representations about both genders still permeate our societies and contribute to the choices made by individuals with regards to their studies and careers. The pay gap is therefore very real, and it needs to be addressed by targeting both gender discrimination at (and to access) work and the cultural factors that play a role in the professional trajectories of men and women. This is pretty off-topic, though, so if you'd like to know more about these issues and discuss them further you can send me a PM. He is not wrong tho, 23 % is a complete lie. It's more like between 6 and 9 %, and if you only take the latest generations that entered in the labor market, the difference is almost inexistant - but what exist is higher inequalities between women, that now beautifully mimick the competitiveness of the male, because thankfully we free ourselves from the male domination through the almighty market). Except the 23% is not a complete lie at all, since it is the reality of the overall multidimensional pay gap between full-time working women and full-time working men. Controlling for occupation, schooling, experience, region, minority status, marital status, etc., does reduce the pay gap, but it is often still above 6-9%, and even sometimes above 15-20% (and like I mentioned earlier, differences in occupations are to be addressed as well anyway). With regards to your last point, I do regard women's accession to the labor market as individuals as a positive social change in terms of the autonomy this has given women (as opposed to dependency on the husband). This is not akin to idolizing the market or claiming that financial independence is the solution to every other type of inequality. Everything equal it is between 6 and 9 % (but we can agree that the everything equal is not always a good abstraction). It is frequently above 6-9%, as indicated by numerous studies on the topic (some of which are referenced on pp. 9-10 of the Joint Economic Committee report I linked to earlier). On September 29 2015 21:59 WhiteDog wrote: The problem is that you consider that accessing to labor is a gain in autonomy everything equal (for every women whatever their social class, race or generation) : it is only for a part of the population that we categorize as women. As the rising inequalities within this very category suggest, for a part of that population accessing the labor market is/was a necessity that oftentime is the result of a degrading situation (and thus a higher dependancy toward labor income rather than a gain in autonomy toward the big bad patriarch). "All other things being equal" does not mean that the positive impact of accessing the labor market is evenly distributed, or even relevant to everyone. It is merely a way to explain that we are talking about the impact of a single independent variable irrespective of other variables which can also impact the dependent variable (the well-being, or the autonomy of women). I never said that every woman benefited equally from accession to the labor market, or even that every woman was concerned, merely that overall it was a positive step with regards to the autonomy of women with respect to their husbands/families. Yeah and, to quote a famous article from François Héran "all other things being inequals", the problem is not that the effect is not evenly distributed, but that the effect is heterogene because the group labelled as "women" is heterogene - and does not exist "everything equal" in reality. We're going to have to disagree on your interpretation of Héran's article, since he does not criticize or oppose the "all other things being equal" method (in statistics or situational testing). I'm not sure why you're telling me that "everything being equal" does not exist in reality -- the point is that the accession of women to the labor market was still overall a positive step with regards to their autonomization, regardless of its heterogeneous effects. Héran is clearly pointing out the limit of statistics measures - and specifically the everything equal method - to understand the social reality ( he points out, for exemple, the abstraction that is the egalisation of conditions, and the difficulty to actually assess discrimination when there are multiple variables that distinguish people within a certain representative sample - and he is not the first in doing so). Saying that it is "overall" a good thing is hiding a few things, such as the fact that for many people it is not at all an increase in autonomy but rather the replacement of one domination by another, or even sometime a plain and simple degradation of the living conditions. We must be reading different articles, because Héran clearly explains why the "all other things being equal" method allows one to determine the relevancy of a given independent variable, mentions in passing that it is a bit of a mental experience when used in statistics but still refers to its usefulness, and he concludes the article by supporting one of the points made through the findings of "all other things being equal" statistical and situational tests. Yes, he is not saying they are useless we agree on that, but he still points out the limits, the difficulty to distinguish the "discriminations" - that the work that he was reviewing isolate through "everything equals" statistics and testings - and situation where the explicative variable are plural, like with social inequalities (that leads some population that face discrimination to share living conditions with non discriminated population, etc.).
Yes, and the abolition of slavery also had heterogeneous results, and I'm sure something a difficult impact on some individuals. That still doesn't mean it wasn't a very positive step, just like women gaining a degree of independence from their husbands through their accession to the labor market. Or do you think that husbands should be the bread winners and women stay at home/provide domestic support? That's a false argument. I don't believe that men should be bread winner, but I don't necessarily believe that increased inequalities in the female group and having to face precarity and depandancy toward the revenu that one gets through labor is - for everyone - a "step forward" (consciously using this very progressive term) compared to the situation that existed before (with, for exemple, wages that permitted, back then, to a familly to live with only one member working). Comparing this with slavery is a bit caricatural, going out of slavery is always a gain in autonomy for a slave. Pushing all women into a competitive labor market is not (at least the answer is subjective) : you prefer staying at home all day cleaning everything and taking care of kids, or working part time cleaning beds in a motel and then going back at home to clean your house and taking care of kids ?
|
Jon Oliver is pretty funny, especially in the early part of his shows, but he also pushes a clear liberal agenda in the main story segment of his shows. Sometimes I'm with him and sometimes not and then it feels really preachy. You should also remember that he is mainly talking to an American audience. There is a reasonably large backlash in America to the accepting of middle-eastern immigrants. So he's really trying to convince Americans that we're not going to be destroyed from the inside by taking in 10s or 100s of thousands of refugees.
He's really good at generating hype and making his agenda sympathetic. The reality is that a large portion of the immigrants are healthy adult males, many of which an American audience would find threatening. Instead, he focuses on a crippled girl who speaks reasonable English and enjoys American soap operas. She's about as non-threatening as you can get. She is a vast minority, but he'll use her to push his agenda because he understands hype and image. If he can make her the face of this refugee wave, then most Americans won't be against helping in this crisis.
Again, the agenda is more American based and he's painting some European leaders as bad so that he can make the refugees more sympathetic to Americans. If European lawmakers become a little more sympathetic to the plight of the refugees, then that's just bonus for him.
Of course, not kicking them when they're moving around should be a universal thing that everyone can do.
|
On September 30 2015 06:39 WhiteDog wrote:Show nested quote +On September 30 2015 06:11 kwizach wrote:On September 30 2015 04:19 WhiteDog wrote:On September 30 2015 01:18 kwizach wrote:On September 30 2015 00:23 WhiteDog wrote:On September 29 2015 22:33 kwizach wrote:On September 29 2015 21:59 WhiteDog wrote:On September 29 2015 21:48 kwizach wrote:On September 29 2015 21:21 WhiteDog wrote:On September 29 2015 19:13 kwizach wrote:[quote] Yeah, those are the usual fallacious arguments of the inequality deniers that do not actually take into account the reality of the differences in earnings between the sexes. First of all, studies have shown that overall there remains a pay gap between men and women for the same jobs, even taking into account various factors like the number of hours worked, the qualifications, etc. ( see for example the Invest in women, invest in America - A Comprehensive Review of Women In the U.S. Economy report by the U.S. Congress' Joint Economic Committee). It's not at 23%, but a difference remains, some of which is attributable to gender discrimination (for example in the hiring process). And since you mention STEM jobs, here's another study which shows gender pay disparity in STEM jobs even after controlling for hours, age, experience, education, etc. Second, mentioning the statistical differences in occupations between men and women is not at all an argument against the idea that there are differences in earnings between the two that need to be addressed. The point is precisely that social norms and representations about both genders still permeate our societies and contribute to the choices made by individuals with regards to their studies and careers. The pay gap is therefore very real, and it needs to be addressed by targeting both gender discrimination at (and to access) work and the cultural factors that play a role in the professional trajectories of men and women. This is pretty off-topic, though, so if you'd like to know more about these issues and discuss them further you can send me a PM. He is not wrong tho, 23 % is a complete lie. It's more like between 6 and 9 %, and if you only take the latest generations that entered in the labor market, the difference is almost inexistant - but what exist is higher inequalities between women, that now beautifully mimick the competitiveness of the male, because thankfully we free ourselves from the male domination through the almighty market). Except the 23% is not a complete lie at all, since it is the reality of the overall multidimensional pay gap between full-time working women and full-time working men. Controlling for occupation, schooling, experience, region, minority status, marital status, etc., does reduce the pay gap, but it is often still above 6-9%, and even sometimes above 15-20% (and like I mentioned earlier, differences in occupations are to be addressed as well anyway). With regards to your last point, I do regard women's accession to the labor market as individuals as a positive social change in terms of the autonomy this has given women (as opposed to dependency on the husband). This is not akin to idolizing the market or claiming that financial independence is the solution to every other type of inequality. Everything equal it is between 6 and 9 % (but we can agree that the everything equal is not always a good abstraction). It is frequently above 6-9%, as indicated by numerous studies on the topic (some of which are referenced on pp. 9-10 of the Joint Economic Committee report I linked to earlier). On September 29 2015 21:59 WhiteDog wrote: The problem is that you consider that accessing to labor is a gain in autonomy everything equal (for every women whatever their social class, race or generation) : it is only for a part of the population that we categorize as women. As the rising inequalities within this very category suggest, for a part of that population accessing the labor market is/was a necessity that oftentime is the result of a degrading situation (and thus a higher dependancy toward labor income rather than a gain in autonomy toward the big bad patriarch). "All other things being equal" does not mean that the positive impact of accessing the labor market is evenly distributed, or even relevant to everyone. It is merely a way to explain that we are talking about the impact of a single independent variable irrespective of other variables which can also impact the dependent variable (the well-being, or the autonomy of women). I never said that every woman benefited equally from accession to the labor market, or even that every woman was concerned, merely that overall it was a positive step with regards to the autonomy of women with respect to their husbands/families. Yeah and, to quote a famous article from François Héran "all other things being inequals", the problem is not that the effect is not evenly distributed, but that the effect is heterogene because the group labelled as "women" is heterogene - and does not exist "everything equal" in reality. We're going to have to disagree on your interpretation of Héran's article, since he does not criticize or oppose the "all other things being equal" method (in statistics or situational testing). I'm not sure why you're telling me that "everything being equal" does not exist in reality -- the point is that the accession of women to the labor market was still overall a positive step with regards to their autonomization, regardless of its heterogeneous effects. Héran is clearly pointing out the limit of statistics measures - and specifically the everything equal method - to understand the social reality ( he points out, for exemple, the abstraction that is the egalisation of conditions, and the difficulty to actually assess discrimination when there are multiple variables that distinguish people within a certain representative sample - and he is not the first in doing so). Saying that it is "overall" a good thing is hiding a few things, such as the fact that for many people it is not at all an increase in autonomy but rather the replacement of one domination by another, or even sometime a plain and simple degradation of the living conditions. We must be reading different articles, because Héran clearly explains why the "all other things being equal" method allows one to determine the relevancy of a given independent variable, mentions in passing that it is a bit of a mental experience when used in statistics but still refers to its usefulness, and he concludes the article by supporting one of the points made through the findings of "all other things being equal" statistical and situational tests. Yes, he is not saying they are useless we agree on that, but he still points out the limits, the difficulty to distinguish the "discriminations" - that the work that he was reviewing isolate through "everything equals" statistics and testings - and situation where the explicative variable are plural, like with social inequalities (that leads some population that face discrimination to share living conditions with non discriminated population, etc.). Let's just agree to disagree on how critical he is of the method, since I don't see him insisting on these limits at all, but instead on the relevancy of the studies in the issue he's introducing, including those relying on "all other things being equal" analyses (see for example his comments on Alain Frickey and Jean-Luc Primon's article).
On September 30 2015 06:39 WhiteDog wrote:Show nested quote +Yes, and the abolition of slavery also had heterogeneous results, and I'm sure something a difficult impact on some individuals. That still doesn't mean it wasn't a very positive step, just like women gaining a degree of independence from their husbands through their accession to the labor market. Or do you think that husbands should be the bread winners and women stay at home/provide domestic support? That's a false argument. I don't believe that men should be bread winner, but I don't necessarily believe that increased inequalities in the female group and having to face precarity and depandancy toward the revenu that one gets through labor is - for everyone - a "step forward" (consciously using this very progressive term) compared to the situation that existed before (with, for exemple, wages that permitted, back then, to a familly to live with only one member working). Comparing this with slavery is a bit caricatural, going out of slavery is always a gain in autonomy for a slave. Pushing all women into a competitive labor market is not (at least the answer is subjective) : you prefer staying at home all day cleaning everything and taking care of kids, or working part time cleaning beds in a motel and then going back at home to clean your house and taking care of kids ? You are caricaturing both stances. I am not saying that accession to the labor markets necessarily had a positive impact for every woman everywhere. I am saying that it had a positive impact overall in terms of the autonomization of women with regards to their husbands. It is better for women in general to be able to earn their own living without having to depend on their husband than the opposite. Likewise, the end of slavery overall was a tremendously positive thing, but it may very well have also resulted in some cases in harder situations for some black people (for example those who couldn't escape falling into involuntary servitude in even poorer conditions).
|
On September 30 2015 07:29 RenSC2 wrote: Jon Oliver is pretty funny, especially in the early part of his shows, but he also pushes a clear liberal agenda in the main story segment of his shows. Sometimes I'm with him and sometimes not and then it feels really preachy. You should also remember that he is mainly talking to an American audience. There is a reasonably large backlash in America to the accepting of middle-eastern immigrants. So he's really trying to convince Americans that we're not going to be destroyed from the inside by taking in 10s or 100s of thousands of refugees.
He's really good at generating hype and making his agenda sympathetic. The reality is that a large portion of the immigrants are healthy adult males, many of which an American audience would find threatening. Instead, he focuses on a crippled girl who speaks reasonable English and enjoys American soap operas. She's about as non-threatening as you can get. She is a vast minority, but he'll use her to push his agenda because he understands hype and image. If he can make her the face of this refugee wave, then most Americans won't be against helping in this crisis.
Again, the agenda is more American based and he's painting some European leaders as bad so that he can make the refugees more sympathetic to Americans. If European lawmakers become a little more sympathetic to the plight of the refugees, then that's just bonus for him.
Of course, not kicking them when they're moving around should be a universal thing that everyone can do.
Thats the Thing.
I'm actually strongly in favour of his Agenda. But this (and a few other reports) were just cheapshots whiteout much meat to them. He basically showed the most ridiculous opponents and a huge outliner of an asylum seeker with the girl. That just feels dishonest to me.
|
On September 30 2015 15:15 Velr wrote:Show nested quote +On September 30 2015 07:29 RenSC2 wrote: Jon Oliver is pretty funny, especially in the early part of his shows, but he also pushes a clear liberal agenda in the main story segment of his shows. Sometimes I'm with him and sometimes not and then it feels really preachy. You should also remember that he is mainly talking to an American audience. There is a reasonably large backlash in America to the accepting of middle-eastern immigrants. So he's really trying to convince Americans that we're not going to be destroyed from the inside by taking in 10s or 100s of thousands of refugees.
He's really good at generating hype and making his agenda sympathetic. The reality is that a large portion of the immigrants are healthy adult males, many of which an American audience would find threatening. Instead, he focuses on a crippled girl who speaks reasonable English and enjoys American soap operas. She's about as non-threatening as you can get. She is a vast minority, but he'll use her to push his agenda because he understands hype and image. If he can make her the face of this refugee wave, then most Americans won't be against helping in this crisis.
Again, the agenda is more American based and he's painting some European leaders as bad so that he can make the refugees more sympathetic to Americans. If European lawmakers become a little more sympathetic to the plight of the refugees, then that's just bonus for him.
Of course, not kicking them when they're moving around should be a universal thing that everyone can do. Thats the Thing. I'm actually strongly in favour of his Agenda. But this (and a few other) reports were just cheapshots whiteout much meat to them. He basically showed the most ridiculous opponents and a huge outliner of an asylum seeker with the girl. That just feels dishonest to me.
No "feels". It is dishonest. It's intentional emotional manipulation while hiding important details. It's standard operating procedure for all media outlets, which is why modern societies are they way they are. Important policy issues aren't addressed because "the feels" are more important.
|
On September 30 2015 07:29 RenSC2 wrote: Jon Oliver is pretty funny, especially in the early part of his shows, but he also pushes a clear liberal agenda in the main story segment of his shows. Sometimes I'm with him and sometimes not and then it feels really preachy. You should also remember that he is mainly talking to an American audience. There is a reasonably large backlash in America to the accepting of middle-eastern immigrants. So he's really trying to convince Americans that we're not going to be destroyed from the inside by taking in 10s or 100s of thousands of refugees.
He's really good at generating hype and making his agenda sympathetic. The reality is that a large portion of the immigrants are healthy adult males, many of which an American audience would find threatening. Instead, he focuses on a crippled girl who speaks reasonable English and enjoys American soap operas. She's about as non-threatening as you can get. She is a vast minority, but he'll use her to push his agenda because he understands hype and image. If he can make her the face of this refugee wave, then most Americans won't be against helping in this crisis.
Again, the agenda is more American based and he's painting some European leaders as bad so that he can make the refugees more sympathetic to Americans. If European lawmakers become a little more sympathetic to the plight of the refugees, then that's just bonus for him.
Of course, not kicking them when they're moving around should be a universal thing that everyone can do. I love Jon Oliver, whenever he talks about something that i dont have that much knowledge about, it's amazing. (Few exceptions are the heavy emphasis on the whole trans-gender cis-gender whateverthefuck, to which he dedicated a disproportionate amount of time, and i really dont feel it's an issue that everyone needs to be well-informed about, or care at all. yes it's an issue, but whatever, it doesnt affect my life, the life of anyone whom i know, and it s not even interesting or shocking..)
However on couple of occasions, when I do know what he's talking about, im soooooo dissapointed about how one-sided and politically driven his view-point is. Not to stir that pot, but did you see his take on the whole Gamer-gate etc. scandal? Citing Anita Sarkeesian and shit, arghh, i wanted to punch the monitor, i was so disgusted by how out-of-touch he was. And now with the refugee crisis also. Seem like good points, except it's 100% one sided, ignores obvious aspects and twists "studies", and makes conclusions drawn from thin air.
Like 19/20 times immigrants who will work for lower wages are a net-benefit for the country, which i dont question, also that study never sampled an actual refugee-wave. Sure, EU needs influx of people, absolutely. Just not like this. Really reall not like this. And focusing so hard on the non-representative human-interest stories, like the crippled girl who speaks fluent English. Or the dumb report woman who kicked 2 refugees (who lost her job, and there are charges pending against her). Sure, moving stories, absolutely irrelevant and non-representative of what is happening.
The thing is, it makes me questions some of his other positions, which seem reasonable and noble, and even fair. But usually i dont really know shit about those topics, so i might just be fooled by his charming ways.
|
|
|
|