Moderator: Community Team
Mr_Adams wrote:You, sir, are an idiot.
Timminz wrote:By that logic, you eat babies.
natty_dread wrote:Do ponies have sex?
(proud member of the Occasionally Wrongly Banned)Army of GOD wrote:the term heterosexual is offensive. I prefer to be called "normal"
Haggis_McMutton wrote:BigBallinStalin wrote:Suppose I send out 1200 fictitious resumes to employers in mining companies. The fictitious applicants are 60 years old. If they get hired, do you think the older entrants will receive a higher, equal, or lower wage than the younger ones?
I have no clue and I'm afraid I don't understand what you're getting at. Are we talking physical labour in the mines? are the older fictitious applicants claiming to have more experience in that same area?
Anyway, I should say I don't have a particularly strong opinion about this. I don't take it as intrinsically wrong that someone might think that moms, on average will be less cutthroat than dads.
Haggis_McMutton wrote:I do take offense with the notion that this issue "has been disproven many times", when it clearly still is an active area of research.
john9blue wrote:i don't.
guess there's only one way to find out...
BigBallinStalin wrote:See this video, and its recommended reading if you're interested enough.
natty_dread wrote:Do ponies have sex?
(proud member of the Occasionally Wrongly Banned)Army of GOD wrote:the term heterosexual is offensive. I prefer to be called "normal"
john9blue wrote:that's because, even if you manage to find women who are able to meet the physical standards that men do, they introduce a whole host of psychological problems to their unit. if the benefit from the additional "man"power in our military outweighed these negative psychological consequences, then i'd be totally in favor of introducing women to combat. the reality of the situation, though, is that our military is already bloated and there's just no need to make our current soldiers suffer more than they have to... even if it's the female soldiers who are victims of misogyny from the males.
the disagreement ITT arises because i look at things from a pragmatic POV and others look at it from an idealist POV. yes, it's unfair for women to not be able to join combat roles because the men can't handle it... but that is simply the way things are. there is a much reduced sense of "brotherhood" if one of us is not a "brother".
first, answer me this: do you think it's irrational for an employer to not want to hire a mother? do you think a company full of mothers will perform just as well as one full of fathers?
BigBallinStalin wrote:The marginal product of labor (MPL) is the "measure of the physical increase in the output of a firm or economy; it is the output that results from hiring one additional worker, all other factors remaining constant." So, as an employer, you want to get the most 'bang for your buck'. Old people in the mines are not as productive as younger people, but hey their lesser MPL can be offset with a lower wage--thus matching their productivity. The price (i.e. wage) depends on expectations but over time it depends mostly on what an employee can actually supply.
I'd imagine this explains what's going on in that 1200 fictitious mothers experiment. Simply because an employer says, "Haggis, you cannot do this job at that price as well as what we expect from Ta1lGunn3r; therefore, we're hiring TG," it doesn't mean that this is wrong. And if that employer miscalculates the MPL (i.e. if he underestimates the productivity of those mothers, while paying more for similarly productive non-mothers), then that employer will incur a marginal cost. However, more importantly, an arbitrage opportunity now exists, so other competitors could profit from the cost-savings by hiring x-amount of those mothers. The market has a tendency to correct this while striving to remain efficient and profitable.
(Government apparently doesn't--much to spurgistan's apparent frustration).
Haggis_McMutton wrote:I do take offense with the notion that this issue "has been disproven many times", when it clearly still is an active area of research.
The wage gap between the biological genders is predominantly explained by differences in productivity which is due to distinct tendencies from either side (which is the outcome of each side's general preferences and choices). See this video, and its recommended reading if you're interested enough.
I'm convinced that 'the debate is over', but some people will always remain butthurt because they reject evidence which contradicts their claims against those evil markets. Unfortunately, they'll continue conducting research, read too much into the data, and manipulate the statistics in order to support their preconceived notions.
However, in 2010, an economist testified to the U.S. Congress Joint Economic Committee that studies "always find that some portion of the wage gap is unexplained" even after controlling for measurable factors that are assumed to influence earnings. The unexplained portion of the wage gap is attributed by some to gender discrimination.[3]:80
The estimates for the discriminatory component of the gender pay gap include 5%[4]:2 and 7%[3]:9 and in at least one study grow as men and women's careers progress.
BigBallinStalin wrote:
Suppose I send out 1200 fictitious resumes to employers in mining companies. The fictitious applicants are 60 years old. If they get hired, do you think the older entrants will receive a higher, equal, or lower wage than the younger ones?
john9blue wrote:i don't.
guess there's only one way to find out...
Mr_Adams wrote:You, sir, are an idiot.
Timminz wrote:By that logic, you eat babies.
patches70 wrote:BigBallinStalin wrote:
Suppose I send out 1200 fictitious resumes to employers in mining companies. The fictitious applicants are 60 years old. If they get hired, do you think the older entrants will receive a higher, equal, or lower wage than the younger ones?
I can safely say that if you send out 1200 fictitious resumes, though you may get some offers, those offers will be rescinded at the moment it is realized that the resumes are fictitious. None will get hired.
But back on topic, there have been lots of polls, women in general aren't interested in serving on the front lines. Even women in the military.
So long as the combat troops can pass the PT, that is the standards should not be lowered nor should there be alternative standards for women and men, then there is no problem. As someone else already said, that chick better be able to pick up a soldier and carry his shot up ass to the nearest aid station if necessary. She better be able to heft that mortar if she's a mortar (wo)man and all that other jazz.
Pay isn't an issue, of a certain rank you get a certain pay. Hazard duty as proscribed and all the other things. It's all laid out, and there isn't a Male Pay scale and a Female Pay scale in the military.
https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q ... 4429,d.b2I
Pretty much the women combat troops will get paid just as crappy as the men. heh heh.
Mr_Adams wrote:You, sir, are an idiot.
Timminz wrote:By that logic, you eat babies.
spurgistan wrote:john9blue wrote:i don't.
guess there's only one way to find out...
What is it about moms you think makes them less efficient workers than fathers? Warning - if you say "they need to take care of the kids," I might punch you through the internet.
natty_dread wrote:Do ponies have sex?
(proud member of the Occasionally Wrongly Banned)Army of GOD wrote:the term heterosexual is offensive. I prefer to be called "normal"
spurgistan wrote:
There have been plenty of peer-reviewed articles where identical fake resumes were made using black-sounding names and white-sounding names, and the white names got called in for interviews at a much higher clip. A bit outdated, but 2009 nber study
spurgistan wrote:It doesn't matter if "women in general" don't want to serve on the front lines - men "in general" don't want to serve on the front lines, or we'd be able to fight way more wars. But a few are ok with being puppets of international finance and dying for oil companies, so, we let them.
spurgistan wrote:Proscribed means the exact opposite of how you used it there. Minor quibble.
john9blue wrote:yes, it's unfair for women to not be able to join combat roles because the men can't handle it... but that is simply the way things are. there is a much reduced sense of "brotherhood" if one of us is not a "brother".
Haggis_McMutton wrote:BigBallinStalin wrote:The marginal product of labor (MPL) is the "measure of the physical increase in the output of a firm or economy; it is the output that results from hiring one additional worker, all other factors remaining constant." So, as an employer, you want to get the most 'bang for your buck'. Old people in the mines are not as productive as younger people, but hey their lesser MPL can be offset with a lower wage--thus matching their productivity. The price (i.e. wage) depends on expectations but over time it depends mostly on what an employee can actually supply.
I'd imagine this explains what's going on in that 1200 fictitious mothers experiment. Simply because an employer says, "Haggis, you cannot do this job at that price as well as what we expect from Ta1lGunn3r; therefore, we're hiring TG," it doesn't mean that this is wrong. And if that employer miscalculates the MPL (i.e. if he underestimates the productivity of those mothers, while paying more for similarly productive non-mothers), then that employer will incur a marginal cost. However, more importantly, an arbitrage opportunity now exists, so other competitors could profit from the cost-savings by hiring x-amount of those mothers. The market has a tendency to correct this while striving to remain efficient and profitable.
(Government apparently doesn't--much to spurgistan's apparent frustration).
Right, I think the problem arises when it's not Haggis vs. TG but Group A of people vs. Group B of people where the groups contains millions.
I think many historical ills can be partially traced to treating large groups of people as if they were individuals. If you think Adam isn't a good hire cause he's more dishonest than Bob, then that's cool. If however you think Adam isn't a good hire cause he's a Jew and Jews are more dishonest than catholics like Bob, then that's very uncool.
Haggis_McMutton wrote:Haggis_McMutton wrote:I do take offense with the notion that this issue "has been disproven many times", when it clearly still is an active area of research.
The wage gap between the biological genders is predominantly explained by differences in productivity which is due to distinct tendencies from either side (which is the outcome of each side's general preferences and choices). See this video, and its recommended reading if you're interested enough.
I'm convinced that 'the debate is over', but some people will always remain butthurt because they reject evidence which contradicts their claims against those evil markets. Unfortunately, they'll continue conducting research, read too much into the data, and manipulate the statistics in order to support their preconceived notions.
I don't think any real scientists is claiming the whole 25% is discrimination. So yes it is predominantly explained due to what the video discusses. Some people say there is still a significant margin that is due to discrimination though. Again, from the wiki articleHowever, in 2010, an economist testified to the U.S. Congress Joint Economic Committee that studies "always find that some portion of the wage gap is unexplained" even after controlling for measurable factors that are assumed to influence earnings. The unexplained portion of the wage gap is attributed by some to gender discrimination.[3]:80
The estimates for the discriminatory component of the gender pay gap include 5%[4]:2 and 7%[3]:9 and in at least one study grow as men and women's careers progress.
I haven't studied the problem in depth, but from what I can see so far the case isn't closed.
Lootifer wrote:john9blue wrote:yes, it's unfair for women to not be able to join combat roles because the men can't handle it... but that is simply the way things are. there is a much reduced sense of "brotherhood" if one of us is not a "brother".
You highlight the inherent problem, and who is responsible for it.
The problem lies with the men who see "brotherhood" as a male-only thing.
The people who suffer because of the problem are the 'ard as fucking nails woman who dont give a f*ck about whats between your legs and just want to soldier.
Im all for trying to correct the men who are causing the problem (and i'd hazard to guess it is actually a fairly low proportion of front line combat soldiers) rather than settling with status quo because "its just too hard".
Like Haggis I support Nobungas requirement that woman meet the exact same entry criteria; I just disagree with your pragmatic argument that fixing soldier psychology is just too hard. If anything getting beat by a girl in training exercises will only serve to improve all the macho twats...
Lootifer wrote:Im all for trying to correct the men who are causing the problem (and i'd hazard to guess it is actually a fairly low proportion of front line combat soldiers) rather than settling with status quo because "its just too hard".
saxitoxin wrote:edit - I decided I don't care that much about this topic so I deleted my post.
thegreekdog wrote:saxitoxin wrote:edit - I decided I don't care that much about this topic so I deleted my post.
That is basically my view on this subject. I'm largely indifferent, although I think the argument against women serving in the military should be reserved to men who actually served in combat, as opposed to men who like to pretend they know what goes on (which is another reason I have no strong opinion - I did not serve and was not in combat so my opinion means little).
natty_dread wrote:Do ponies have sex?
(proud member of the Occasionally Wrongly Banned)Army of GOD wrote:the term heterosexual is offensive. I prefer to be called "normal"
john9blue wrote:thegreekdog wrote:saxitoxin wrote:edit - I decided I don't care that much about this topic so I deleted my post.
That is basically my view on this subject. I'm largely indifferent, although I think the argument against women serving in the military should be reserved to men who actually served in combat, as opposed to men who like to pretend they know what goes on (which is another reason I have no strong opinion - I did not serve and was not in combat so my opinion means little).
this sounds eerily like the argument women use for why men shouldn't be allowed to debate abortion...
saxitoxin wrote:edit - I decided I don't care that much about this topic so I deleted my post.
spurgistan wrote:john9blue wrote:i don't.
guess there's only one way to find out...
What is it about moms you think makes them less efficient workers than fathers? Warning - if you say "they need to take care of the kids," I might punch you through the internet.
Return to Practical Explanation about Next Life,
Users browsing this forum: Dukasaur