If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(American Thinker)   "When individuality asserts itself, we find that household incomes are nearly always the product of factors other than inequality. Anyone who believes otherwise should spend time with someone in the lowest household income quintile"   (americanthinker.com) divider line 153
    More: Fail, median household income, wage gap, progressive taxes, Joseph Stalin, Organization for Economic Cooperation  
•       •       •

2959 clicks; posted to Politics » on 05 May 2012 at 10:36 AM (2 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



153 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-05-05 01:37:41 PM

RodneyToady: cameroncrazy1984: RodneyToady: Hours worked, both yearly and per job title within an industry, needs to be part of the equation, and it may not be here.

I'm not sure what part of "Women make 80 cents for every dollar earned by men" is confusing to you.

Because it's not specific. It's a nice sound bite, but it lacks crucial information on how that number was derived. Are these means? Medians? Across all industries? Accurate for every level of every job in every region?

How's this: If you're just starting out in a minimum wage job, you're expected to start at minimum wage. I presume Staples is minimum wage (it was when I worked there over a decade ago). I, a man, made minimum wage. My female coworkers who were just starting, made minimum wage. Therefore, at least for that job level, it may be safe to say that women did not make 80% of my hourly wage.

Some, however, may have worked 24 hours a week to my 30 hours a week. Those women would have been making 80 cents to my dollar, if you ignore hours worked. To me, hours worked would be an important number to factor in.

When looking at complex data sets, a one-sentence summary is rarely comprehensive.


I've also heard that unpaid maternal leave is factored in and accounts for a good chunk of that disparity. Sadly, no numbers to back it up, so take it with a grain of salt.
 
2012-05-05 02:03:27 PM
I nearly threw up when the article tried to dispute the existence of marginal utility. It's pretty farking easy to prove the existence of marginal utility (as a consequence of a proof that people are risk-averse, which is only one of the most important principles in financial economics).
 
2012-05-05 02:34:34 PM

hillbillypharmacist: These are the sorts of folks who take it on faith that people get what they deserve.

If you make that your initial assumption, then all conservatism follows.


There are sorts of people who take it in faith that if you are poor it is the fault of someone else, and the poor person is NEVER responsible for their own state in life.

If you make that your initial assumption, then all liberalism follows.
 
2012-05-05 02:44:42 PM
Right, because a magazine created by an amoral fascist elitist pedophile like Taki Theodoracopolus would have a realistic perspective on poor people and working womekn.
 
2012-05-05 03:06:16 PM

RodneyToady: cameroncrazy1984: RodneyToady: Hours worked, both yearly and per job title within an industry, needs to be part of the equation, and it may not be here.

I'm not sure what part of "Women make 80 cents for every dollar earned by men" is confusing to you.

Because it's not specific. It's a nice sound bite, but it lacks crucial information on how that number was derived. Are these means? Medians? Across all industries? Accurate for every level of every job in every region?

How's this: If you're just starting out in a minimum wage job, you're expected to start at minimum wage. I presume Staples is minimum wage (it was when I worked there over a decade ago). I, a man, made minimum wage. My female coworkers who were just starting, made minimum wage. Therefore, at least for that job level, it may be safe to say that women did not make 80% of my hourly wage.

Some, however, may have worked 24 hours a week to my 30 hours a week. Those women would have been making 80 cents to my dollar, if you ignore hours worked. To me, hours worked would be an important number to factor in.

When looking at complex data sets, a one-sentence summary is rarely comprehensive.


If you read further in that article, you would see that one of the GAO's conclusions was that disparity in hours worked further suppressed women's wages as compared to men. That very strongly indicates that the 80 cent gap does take into account wages per hour.
 
2012-05-05 03:09:14 PM

RodneyToady: Some, however, may have worked 24 hours a week to my 30 hours a week. Those women would have been making 80 cents to my dollar, if you ignore hours worked. To me, hours worked would be an important number to factor in.


You should check out the pdf of the study; they do take hours worked into account. It's actually one of the more obvious controls in studies like this.
 
2012-05-05 03:46:13 PM
I suspect that the author of TFA found the "radio speech" in Atlas Shrugged way too brief and sketchy.
 
2012-05-05 03:53:53 PM
What the fark am I reading?
 
2012-05-05 03:58:26 PM

LoneWolf343: What the fark am I reading?


I don't know, but I'm surprised a spooky little girl didn't call me on the phone and say "SEVEN DAYS" right after I read it.
 
2012-05-05 03:59:46 PM
I love how the 'argument' here for economic inequality is 'THERE IS NONE, PEOPLE ARE LAZY, NOW GO BACK TO WORK.' I don't know what frustrates me more: the fact that the contempt behind this is not even hidden or that it automatically assumes that we should be grateful to our masters and give them a wide berth for their inherent authority. Exactly how this is 'American,' again?

Why we don't deport Republicans to the center of the sun is beyond me at this point, because there is nothing about them worth salvaging.
 
2012-05-05 04:07:14 PM

Serious Black: If you read further in that article, you would see that one of the GAO's conclusions was that disparity in hours worked further suppressed women's wages as compared to men. That very strongly indicates that the 80 cent gap does take into account wages per hour.


Biological Ali: You should check out the pdf of the study; they do take hours worked into account. It's actually one of the more obvious controls in studies like this.


They take work hours into account, to an extent. The mean hours worked per year are wildly divergent (2,154 for men, 1,672 for women), and full-time vs part-time is very different as well (men: 88% full time; women 67% full time).
(I'm only looking at workers, btw)

Some issues, right off:
1) The linked data is well over a decade old.
2) They explicitly state they don't consider correlation between certain variables. So living in the South is a factor, being a woman is a factor, but being a woman in the South isn't a factor. Interaction effects are probably rampant, but it doesn't seem as though they looked at them.
3) They collapse across jobs in a way that isn't practical in reality. Professional/technical seems to be one category, which can include any number of things. Even if it was limited to, say, lawyers, there's a huge difference between being a partner at a white-shoe firm and being a public defender.

I could go on, but I don't think it would serve a purpose.

My point isn't that I don't believe discrimination against women in the workplace doesn't exist, because I'm sure it does. It's that I don't think analyses like this (broad-based, over-generalizing across multiple categories) demonstrates it.
 
2012-05-05 04:14:02 PM

Serious Black: Poor people are poor cause God hates them.


I suppose that's the flip side of the "Prosperity Gospel" that many Americans subscribe to...
 
2012-05-05 04:17:29 PM

RodneyToady: My point isn't that I don't believe discrimination against women in the workplace doesn't exist, because I'm sure it does. It's that I don't think analyses like this (broad-based, over-generalizing across multiple categories) demonstrates it


So, you believe that the only way to prove income disparity is to poll every single human working in the US today?

Jesus Christ, man, take a stats class.
 
2012-05-05 04:18:21 PM

Debeo Summa Credo: If you make that your initial assumption, then all liberalism follows


That's a mighty nice strawman you have, there.
 
2012-05-05 04:19:29 PM
That's an awful lot of words to say that poor people are asking for it.
 
2012-05-05 04:25:16 PM

gameshowhost: I love this paragraph since it fails so goddamned hard:

"But one could just as persuasively argue that the millionaire experiences little drop in marginal utility on the next dollar earned, or he wouldn't consistently drive himself to success. The day laborer's inconsistent work habits could just as easily reflect his low marginal utility for that next dollar earned. (George Bernard Shaw, in his masterly play Pygmalion, provides an excellent example of money's low marginal utility to the working poor. Money actually held negative marginal utility to Alfred Doolittle, who preferred Henry Higgins' five-pound offer to Higgins' ten-pound offer.)"

/ceteris parabis violations
//tard-like grasp on marginal analysis
///self-anointed persuasiveness
//using an anecdote from a work of fiction as economic data
/... oh lawd


Well, since American Thinker is fiction to begin with, it's not really much of a violation, now, is it?
 
2012-05-05 04:38:46 PM

cameroncrazy1984: RodneyToady: My point isn't that I don't believe discrimination against women in the workplace doesn't exist, because I'm sure it does. It's that I don't think analyses like this (broad-based, over-generalizing across multiple categories) demonstrates it

So, you believe that the only way to prove income disparity is to poll every single human working in the US today?

Jesus Christ, man, take a stats class.


Yes, obviously people who have never taken a stats class talk about interaction effects in regression analyses.

To answer your ridiculous comment, no, you don't have to poll "every single human." But to make an accurate statement as to discrimination, you most likely *do* have to look at each job category in a realistic way to determine the extent discrimination plays in wage disparity for that category. Otherwise, we could just mandate that all women get an across-the-board percentage raise equal to the mean disparity as calculated by the GAO.

You act as if this is a uni-dimensional problem, equal across all job categories. Perhaps you could benefit from a stats class or two.
 
2012-05-05 04:39:08 PM

RodneyToady: They take work hours into account, to an extent. The mean hours worked per year are wildly divergent (2,154 for men, 1,672 for women), and full-time vs part-time is very different as well (men: 88% full time; women 67% full time).
(I'm only looking at workers, btw)


It doesn't matter that the numbers are divergent, because they control for that. I.e. without controlling for anything, women fall short by about 44%, but after controlling for all the variables they mention, women fall short by around 20%. Indeed, if you sift through the study's methodology and pay attention to all the variables that they control for (which they do list in some detail), you'll find that each of the concerns you've raised here is addressed.
 
2012-05-05 04:40:44 PM

cameroncrazy1984: Debeo Summa Credo: If you make that your initial assumption, then all liberalism follows

That's a mighty nice strawman you have, there.


Is it as nice as the strawman to which I was responding?
 
2012-05-05 04:52:16 PM

Biological Ali: RodneyToady: They take work hours into account, to an extent. The mean hours worked per year are wildly divergent (2,154 for men, 1,672 for women), and full-time vs part-time is very different as well (men: 88% full time; women 67% full time).
(I'm only looking at workers, btw)

It doesn't matter that the numbers are divergent, because they control for that. I.e. without controlling for anything, women fall short by about 44%, but after controlling for all the variables they mention, women fall short by around 20%. Indeed, if you sift through the study's methodology and pay attention to all the variables that they control for (which they do list in some detail), you'll find that each of the concerns you've raised here is addressed.


Yeah, the idea that the statisticians at the GAO never took multivariate statistics and have no idea to check for interactions between variables is silly.
 
2012-05-05 05:08:16 PM

Biological Ali: It doesn't matter that the numbers are divergent, because they control for that. I.e. without controlling for anything, women fall short by about 44%, but after controlling for all the variables they mention, women fall short by around 20%. Indeed, if you sift through the study's methodology and pay attention to all the variables that they control for (which they do list in some detail), you'll find that each of the concerns you've raised here is addressed.


I'd have to see exactly how it's controlled for. By the looks of things, it's still a global control, which is still problematic. Part-time vs. full-time may affect different jobs/professions differently; again, a potential issue when collapsing across categories.

They do a few other things that I take issue with. At certain points, they use the national unemployment rate as a factor, rather than local unemployment rates. Perhaps this wasn't as big a deal in 2000, but now, it's critical.

A key line in the .pdf, on page 58: "This data set, however, follows a specific cohort of individuals over time and is therefore not representative of the population as a whole."
 
2012-05-05 05:10:36 PM
Poor people are just lazy.

This is what conservatives actually believe.
 
2012-05-05 05:18:07 PM

Serious Black: Yeah, the idea that the statisticians at the GAO never took multivariate statistics and have no idea to check for interactions between variables is silly.


All I know is what they wrote in the report. If they ran it and it was non-significant, why not list it in another appendix? Maybe it's there, and I'm not seeing it. There's a few things like that. They have father's education, and mother's education. I don't see "highest parental level of education" which would be the max value, "highest level of education of primary caregiver" if the person was raised in a single-parent household, "year [father,mother] attained highest level of education" which is significant, since it was more rare for a person (and especially for women) to get a college degree (or beyond) in years past, etc. And that's not even including the fact that education for each parent may have a different impact depending on the sex of the individual studied (e.g., a mother with a high level of education may impact wages for a daughter more than a son, because of same-sex role modeling).

Maybe these variables were run and knocked out, maybe they weren't run at all. I don't see a list of "non-significant variables" or "non-significant interactions." Maybe there's another website with info that's not in the report, I don't know.
 
2012-05-05 06:29:21 PM

jake_lex: Well, this has been the conservative playbook for a while now. The point here is to argue that poor people are the way they are because they're losers, so helping them out is a waste of time and money. You there, Mr. Lower Middle Class Voter, on the fringes of the middle class, struggling to get by, on the other hand, are fully capable of getting rich if the government would just get off your back and stop propping up these deadbeats. The system is not definitely rigged to keep wealth concentrated in a tiny little circle. Oh no. It's the welfare moms and crackheads' fault you aren't getting ahead. Definitely not Goldman Sachs.


...but remember, when rich talk about the poor to the other rich, the "freeloaders" et al, they're talking about Mr. Lower Middle Class voter. Hell, they're talking about anyone who doesn't make six figures a year.
 
2012-05-05 06:42:31 PM

RodneyToady: cameroncrazy1984: Does the GAO work for you?

Even accounting for factors such as occupation, industry, race, marital status and job tenure, reports the GAO, working women today earn an average of 80 cents for every dollar earned by their male counterparts.

Erm... from the link you just sent posted:

"Women in the workforce are also less likely to work a full-time schedule and are more likely to leave the labor force for longer periods of time than men, further suppressing women's wages. These differing work patterns lead to an even larger earnings gap between men and women - suggesting that working women are penalized for their dual roles as wage earners and those who disproportionately care for home and family."

Hours worked, both yearly and per job title within an industry, needs to be part of the equation, and it may not be here.

Also, once again, "woman" is being conflated with "mother." Are childless women facing the same pay disparity as mothers are? And, if not, is it due to outright discrimination, or to the fact that some mothers drop out of the working work from time to time due to pregnancy/maternity leave, and the perception is that women in general/mothers-to-be will do that, so they lose chances for promotion/important clients/increasing responsibilities at work that lead to promotions?


I wish I had my economics books with me. The answer to the woman/mother question, from what I've read is that women who never have children make more than men ON AVERAGE. Women who have children make less ON average.

I thought the article was excellent. I think the avoidance of statistics would be fantastic for politics. The problem with statistics is that they often give people the illusion of knowledge. People conflate correlation with causation constantly. One might as well read entrails.
 
2012-05-05 06:46:42 PM

quatchi: When asked to name the one reform that swelled his pride most, Cowperthwaite replied, "I abolished the collection of statistics."

I think I just figured out why this guy is their hero.

Facts have an uncomfortable liberal bias? Eliminate the collection of facts. Ta da!


The point of the article is that statistics aren't facts. They are numbers generated by a process that sometimes gives the person calculating them no real understanding of the situation at hand.

Lies, damned lies, and statistics...
 
2012-05-05 06:53:26 PM
A robust patina of academic pusillanimity

thank you Mr. Safire
 
2012-05-05 07:30:26 PM
This economic downturn has taken me from a highest quintile to the lowest quintile of income, and now I'm hovering somewhere in the 2nd quintile. If anyone wants to hang out with me, I'd be happy to invite you to my microscopic apartment and share my water and bread.
 
2012-05-05 07:55:26 PM

AirmanHardy: quatchi: When asked to name the one reform that swelled his pride most, Cowperthwaite replied, "I abolished the collection of statistics."

I think I just figured out why this guy is their hero.

Facts have an uncomfortable liberal bias? Eliminate the collection of facts. Ta da!

The point of the article is that statistics aren't facts. They are numbers generated by a process that sometimes gives the person calculating them no real understanding of the situation at hand.

Lies, damned lies, and statistics...


I would suggest the need for more facts rather than less would be the way to go there.

Better facts, more meaningful statistics, not just throwing one's hands up in the air and saying 'it's all too complicated to ever mean anything useful' kinda thing.
 
2012-05-05 08:08:32 PM
"Capitalism affirms the irremediable, fruitful and beneficent inequality of men." - Ronald Reagan
 
2012-05-05 08:12:37 PM

Lost Thought 00: When individuality asserts itself

WTF does this phrase even mean?



"When rich people get to do whatever they want and aren't hemmed in by stupid unfair laws that prevent them from grinding up poor people to use as meat, while dumping the chemical waste into the water supply of a town they don't live in."
 
2012-05-05 08:12:51 PM

quatchi: I would suggest the need for more facts rather than less would be the way to go there.

Better facts, more meaningful statistics, not just throwing one's hands up in the air and saying 'it's all too complicated to ever mean anything useful' kinda thing.


To what end?
 
2012-05-05 08:17:03 PM
You guys know that you could take all the money and put it in a big pile and hand it out in equal shares, and within like two years... everything would be back to the way it was.... with all the same people being rich and all the same people being poor.
 
2012-05-05 08:29:56 PM

MaudlinMutantMollusk: So, is this, like, the "Ignorance is Bliss" doctrine?

/WTF did I just read?


"When I look for things I want to find, I find them. Therefore, what I'm looking for is proven and thus true, and my theory is demonstrably correct and all other prior theories are wrong."
 
2012-05-05 09:26:32 PM
4.bp.blogspot.com

/I honestly could not understand that. Even when I turned Aspie Mode on.
 
2012-05-05 09:30:26 PM

PsiChick: [4.bp.blogspot.com image 552x360]

/I honestly could not understand that. Even when I turned Aspie Mode on.


What: wonder-twin powers? Form of an Aspie?
 
2012-05-05 09:39:01 PM

vygramul: PsiChick: [4.bp.blogspot.com image 552x360]

/I honestly could not understand that. Even when I turned Aspie Mode on.

What: wonder-twin powers? Form of an Aspie?


I can be incredibly precise in my speech. Egghead-talk, in layman's terms. It's technically a speech disorder or something but I really don't care, since it makes my essays sound professional.

However, I cannot for the life of me understand what this guy is talking about.
 
2012-05-05 10:25:33 PM
If you read that headline and then clicked the link, I have some bad news for you.
 
2012-05-05 10:27:54 PM

rohar: quatchi: I would suggest the need for more facts rather than less would be the way to go there.

Better facts, more meaningful statistics, not just throwing one's hands up in the air and saying 'it's all too complicated to ever mean anything useful' kinda thing.

To what end?


A deeper and more meaningful understanding of reality and ourselves?

Viable data that makes tracking significant social and economic trends easier?

What more do you want?

The idea of banning statistics because of misuse or error rather than improving them is, quite frankly, more than a little nuts.
 
2012-05-05 10:53:27 PM
Srsly, Farkmins.

Few even click.

The thread will always consist of appropriately distracted scornful dismissal.

Why?
 
2012-05-05 11:05:58 PM
The concept of a "free market" is much like "God", an abstraction that has no perceivable form but that people put great faith in, and yet has never or never will exist other than in the imagination.
 
2012-05-05 11:10:23 PM
I'm betting the author has read a Henry James novel or two, or at least made it all the way through Moby Dick.
 
2012-05-05 11:16:24 PM

nardman: So, worthless pieces of shiat who don't work hard or go to school or save their money are right where they should be. I don't have a problem with this.


They don't deserve to be screwed out of their homes and life savings by corrupt bankers who are then protected from prosecution by corrupt politicians.
 
2012-05-06 12:07:20 AM
I'm okay now. I have job security because the school needs a seventh grade teacher for each subject. However, for the 4 years before I got this job, I made less than $20,000 per year. I worked my ass off. I was okay for part of that because I lived with my parents, but for part of that, I teetered on the edge. I didn't have cable. I had a television because I had gotten it as a gift from my parents. I had food, barely. I washed clothes by hand, in cold water because I needed to save on my heat. I didn't have a penny to my name. I didn't have a penny saved anywhere. I dropped out of school (college); that was my mistake. According to this guy, I deserved every single thing that came to me, because of one mistake. It only took 6 months out of college before I came to my senses and went back. I earned my degree, while living on poverty. I could because my parents helped by letting me live with them. According to this guy, when I was poor and asked for food stamps, I didn't deserve them and deserved to starve because my 10.50 an hour for 50-80 hours a week was my doing. Whatever. It was. Still, I would never starve anyone for their mistakes now that I'm able to prevent that.
 
2012-05-06 12:57:34 AM
If you believe this paper is true, and that anecdotes convert to fact... please come to my house, just email me, we'll have you over. I should warn you that I'm working two jobs and have a home business fixing bikes, skis, and snowboards, and that my place got robbed so there are some gaps in comfortable living, and that most of my money goes to MS drugs, so we're on the one meal a day plan (I make too much to get either medicaid or food stamps, though not enough to buy all four of my drugs in any given month)... so come the hell on over, talk to me about how I could better use the 8 hours a day I'm sleeping, then when I take your advice, watch me try to hold on to things like pens and pencils when my hands shake and my ms drugs aren't working so great.

As for the stat part of this, this kid would have failed my intro to stats class miserably. From inferred causality to just a general failure at running basic regressions to a lack of understanding how to instrument variables, this is just a million kinds of stat failures. This is not a problem with statistics, it's a problem with idiots who try to use a general lack of understanding of statistics as a political tool. This is an editorial, not a research paper... presenting it as anything else is just dishonest.
 
2012-05-06 12:59:05 AM

nardman: So, worthless pieces of shiat who don't work hard or go to school or save their money are right where they should be. I don't have a problem with this.


Then keep electing them.
 
2012-05-06 01:01:16 AM

BuckTurgidson: Srsly, Farkmins.

Few even click.

The thread will always consist of appropriately distracted scornful dismissal.

Why?


You filling in for tenlbsofcattlewaste now?
 
2012-05-06 01:21:52 AM

firefly212: nardman: So, worthless pieces of shiat who don't work hard or go to school or save their money are right where they should be. I don't have a problem with this.

Then keep electing them.


Oh snap.
 
2012-05-06 01:47:53 AM
So the poor are poor because it's their own fault?

Shills for the overclass have been singing this song since David Ricardo, James Mill, F. Penrose Philp, C. L. Brace, W. A. Potts, et al.
 
2012-05-06 01:48:39 AM

SoxSweepAgain: This article is exhaustingly over-written.

A slog to be sure.


When you get paid by the word...
 
Displayed 50 of 153 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report