Saturday morning links

The Gang of Z Strikes Again! Pentagrams Uber Alles! (And why are quadragrams so looked down upon?)

Dick's: Boo. Hoo. Shot themselves in both feet.

Why your state is smaller than you think (video): The video link takes me not to a video but to Colorado pot use

Oh those Dems! Don't want the white vote. They're going to make whites an identity group. I look forward to that; yes, I do.

#1.1 Sam L. on 2018-12-01 10:11 (Reply)

The kiddiezz continue to prove ipso facto lunacy exists with every comment...

#1.2 Zzzatemypuppy on 2018-12-01 10:19 (Reply)

Gasbot makes the eternal leftist mistakes:*

1. Fails to recognize that virtue is private;

2. Fails to recognize that virtue is neither collective or forceful.

In other words, I'll lay claim to being the worst bigot that ever walked on God's green earth and the gasbot's only reaction will be chosen from this short list:

1. Indifference;

2. Surely the State should do something.

A leftist is best described by a morally insensitive tyrant whose only aim is to dominate. Tends to mitigate against all that fake virtue they cart around like weaponry.

*Given its paycheck, assuming it even cares.

#1.2.1 Yet the Gasbot abides. on 2018-12-01 11:54 (Reply)

Feminists and leftists spout data from slanted studies that compare the salaries of men to women without normalizing for job type or years of experience.

Ipso facto discrimination does exist!

On the other hand, some prominent Demoncrats pay their female staffers less than their male counterparts doing exactly the same job. Case in point: Bill Clinton let Dee Dee Myers go replacing her with Mike McCury at a higher salary.

#1.3 mudbug on 2018-12-01 11:09 (Reply)

mudbug: Feminists and leftists spout data from slanted studies that compare the salaries of men to women without normalizing for job type or years of experience.

The claim was that markets would seamlessly eliminate discrimination. That's simply not the case. Preferences, rational or otherwise, are an inherent part of markets.

#1.3.1 Zachriel on 2018-12-01 13:22 (Reply)

Wrong, Gasbot. The inference was that if discrimination existed it would rationally actually favor women for economic reasons.

How this would be any of your concern is unstated but implied: Because nannybots present a bogus individual morality whose real aim is statist control of private behavior.

#1.3.1.1 Yet the Gasbot abides. on 2018-12-01 14:36 (Reply)

No one said anything about "seamlessly" or that markets fix everything. Your continuing practice of putting words in other's mouths...

Oh, the hell with it. That you have to misrepresent what others say is evidence that you know your arguments cannot stand without assistance.

#1.3.1.2 Assistant Village Idiot (Link) on 2018-12-01 16:47 (Reply)

Assistant Village Idiot: No one said anything about "seamlessly" or that markets fix everything.

Let's look again:

QUOTE:

Wage gap: "... if capitalists could actually hire women at half the cost of men for the same work, men would never hold jobs again."

The claim is that the market would shift all hiring to women because they work cheaper. But this doesn't account for the discriminatory preference. If most people prefer to hire men, whether that preference is rational or not, then the market result will be higher wages for men.

#1.3.1.2.1 Zachriel on 2018-12-02 09:05 (Reply)

That's a pervasive problem. The form of argument is that the market doesn't do something perfectly, so we should replace it with something that make or may not do it better, shut up. It's very much like arguing that a vaccine may have a side effect, so it's better not to vaccinate anyone. If you disagree you must hate children. I call it the "you must love the (alleged) side effect" approach. Thinking through costs and benefits is hard!

#1.3.1.2.2 Texan99 on 2018-12-02 09:51 (Reply)

Texan99: The form of argument is that the market doesn't do something perfectly, so we should replace it with something that make or may not do it better, shut up.

Well, that is certainly not our position. Markets are essential for economic progress. Our position is that one shouldn't falsely attribute traits to markets that they do not necessarily exhibit.

Texan99: Thinking through costs and benefits is hard!

Quite so. In the case of racial and gender prejudice, it has turned out that laws are required to significantly reduce discrimination.

#1.3.1.2.2.1 Zachriel on 2018-12-02 10:17 (Reply)

There we have it; the answer to the very premise I leveled a few comments above that leftists are fundamentally tyrannical. Apparently it's the Gasbot's position that legal force should be used to conform behaviors to a popular whim.

This we euphemistically call Democracy. This philosophy of intolerant force we also note leftists refuse to address, just as Gasbot refused.

#1.3.1.2.2.1.1 Yet the gasbot abides. on 2018-12-02 10:44 (Reply)

Believe that should be referred to as "tap danzing"... with a little syncopated pedantry.

#1.3.1.2.2.1.1.1 Zzzatemypuppy on 2018-12-02 13:45 (Reply)

See http://www.iwf.org/blog/2808066/Personal-Choices,-Not-Vast-Sexist-Conspiracies,-Explain-Unequal-Pay

#1.3.2 Sam L. on 2018-12-02 17:10 (Reply)

That's not the claim. The claim is that these particular headlines about the studies are deliberately misleading, even dishonest, in support of a particular narrative, and inflaming public opinion.

Do you see the difference?

#1.4 Assistant Village Idiot (Link) on 2018-12-01 16:43 (Reply)

Assistant Village Idiot: That's not the claim. The claim is that these particular headlines about the studies are deliberately misleading, even dishonest, in support of a particular narrative, and inflaming public opinion.

The study found that much but not all of the wage disparity is due to taking time out of the labor force. Women are much more likely to take time out of the labor force to provide unpaid family care, and are penalized more than men for having done so.

There were two claims in the article. The first concerned media portrayal of the study. The other concerned the effect of markets on wage disparity. The latter claim assumes that discrimination, where it exists, would be addressed by market forces, and this is the claim that we disputed. You might argue that discrimination is a minor effect, but not because markets would adjust, as markets reflect preference, including irrational discrimination.

#1.4.1 Zachriel on 2018-12-02 10:09 (Reply)

QUOTE:

The Atlantic: “Women May Earn Just 49 Cents on the Dollar ... Each number highlights a different aspect of a complicated and nuanced situation—one reflecting not only sexism and bias but the choices made more or less freely by millions of women in hundreds of thousands of workplaces."

NBC News: “Gender pay gap is worse than thought: Study shows women actually earn half the income of men ... Women who left the workforce for a year earned an overall average of 39 percent less than men, the study found."

Reuters: “U.S. women earn half the income of men, new study finds ... Women earned roughly half the income of men in the United States over a 15-year period, taking into account time off for family or child care"

Jezebel: "The Gender Pay Gap Is Way More Fucked Than You Thought ... Traditionally, reports on the pay gap look at census data of men and women who work full-time in any given year. But that analysis only accounts for men and women who are able to fully participate in the work force, leaving out people who have to leave, either full or part-time, to take care of children, relatives, or other family members. Women are far more likely to make these sacrifices and are nearly twice as likely as men to take at least one year off work, a symptom of gender inequality that isn’t usually reflected in the pay gap statistics that inform policy reform."

All of the articles mentioned by Instapundit explained the source of the disparity, much of which is due to taking time out of the workforce.

#1.4.2 Zachriel on 2018-12-02 10:10 (Reply)

Except the headlines didn't. Which was the point, as being misleading is dishonest.

Addressing the main point is a continuing problem with you. You persist in changing the subject 10 degrees at a time to things you like better.

Very simple. Were the headlines misleading? Yes or no? Are such things damaging to the national discussion? Yes or no?

#1.4.2.1 Assistant Village Idiot (Link) on 2018-12-02 19:45 (Reply)

Assistant Village Idiot: Except the headlines didn't. Which was the point, as being misleading is dishonest.

The article asked "Guess How The Media Is Portraying It." While headlines are important, the body of the text is also part of the media portrayal.

Assistant Village Idiot: Were the headlines misleading?

The headlines are accurate if incomplete. The body of the text further explains the headlines. Women are often expected to put their careers on hold for families, and when they do, they are penalized more than men. The authors of the study recommend policies that increase workforce attachment for women.

#1.4.2.1.1 Zachriel on 2018-12-03 09:12 (Reply)

Compare the highlights from the Institute for Women's Policy Research study below to the media reports:

QUOTE:

• Women today earn just 49 cents to the typical men’s dollar, much less than the 80 cents usually reported.
• The penalties of taking time out of the labor force are high—and increasing.
• Strengthening women’s labor force attachment is critical to narrowing the gender wage gap.
• Strengthening enforcement of equal employment opportunity policies and Title IX in education is also crucial to narrowing the gender wage gap further.

Note that the media headlines are correctly reporting the study.

#1.4.2.1.2 Zachriel on 2018-12-03 09:32 (Reply)

If I needed a new gun, Dicks would not be one of the places I would shop because of their political stance on rifles. You made the bed, Dicks. Now lie in it.

#2 Dangerous Dean on 2018-12-01 12:44 (Reply)

Shapiro and Peterson video.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1opHWsHr798

#3 Jake on 2018-12-01 15:27 (Reply)

Those numbers about pot legalization are bogus, and explained here.

#4 jdgalt on 2018-12-01 15:46 (Reply)

Add Comment

Name
Email	(Your e-mail will not show in your comment)
Homepage
In reply to
Comment	By commenting on this site you agree to the site rules listed here. Email addresses will not be displayed and will only be used for email notifications. Quick reference guide: [i] italics [/i], [b] bold [/b], [u] underline [/u], [url] (web address) [/url]. More tips here. Enclosing asterisks marks text as bold (word), underscore are made via _word_. E-Mail addresses will not be displayed and will only be used for E-Mail notifications. To prevent automated Bots from commentspamming, please enter the string you see in the image below in the appropriate input box. Your comment will only be submitted if the strings match. Please ensure that your browser supports and accepts cookies, or your comment cannot be verified correctly. Enter the string from the spam-prevention image above: BBCode format allowed
	Remember Information? Subscribe to this entry

Maggie's Farm

Our Recent Essays Behind the Front Page

Categories

Quicksearch

Links

Blog Administration

RSS Readers

Saturday, December 1. 2018

Saturday morning links