Red Mosquito

tree_ wrote:

--- wrote:

tree_ wrote:

--- wrote:

tragabigzanda wrote:I spoke to the legalities of setting up a corporation because it has baring on the topic. Corporations are required to have by-laws in place as part of their governing documents, and this is precisely where a corporation would define any sort of measures that may implement to offset the gender pay gap. Without specific language to that end, corporations have no obligation that precedes the maximization of profit.

Irrelevant. No one has argued that corporations don't both in theory and practice put profits ahead of all other considerations, including the way they hire, promote, and compensate.

Relevant if you believe laws are necessary for women to be paid the same as men. What a nightmare.

Oh man we haven't even touched on how stupid "equal pay" laws are!

It's stupid to hear arguments such as these from the mouths of so-called feminists. Is this supposed to be empowering?

tragabigzanda wrote:

--- wrote:

tragabigzanda wrote:

--- wrote:

tragabigzanda wrote:...you offered one paper that was not peer-reviewed and took a narrow focus as the best source of information; I offered multiple links that would offer a wide body of information because I believe that, in the absence of any sort of serious personal research in the matter, a wide body of work is a better source than a single white paper.

I don't care about your links regarding the legalities of setting up various types of corporations; they are entirely beside the point. The other links only summarized general facts about something that I've already acknowledged: that a wage gap between genders exists. None of them advance an explanation or attempt anything beyond breaking down and summarizing phenomena no one in this thread disputed.

Did you skip the part of my post where I referred to the literature review? You know, the part of the paper that sources all the peer-reviewed research this particular academic document is attempting to supplement? The same literature review that references published, peer-review research of similar findings with granular, industry-specific data, the sum of which represents a body of work at least as wide as the redundant "literature" to which you referred? Do I really have to hold your hand and outline how to consume academic research?

And for the record, yes, a single working paper from the NBER by five prominent academic economists is prima-facie more credible than anything that comes out of an organization whose mission is to "promote equity and education for women." You provide "research" whose aim is expressly political, I provide research whose aim is expressly academic.

tragabigzanda wrote:I spoke to the legalities of setting up a corporation because it has baring on the topic. Corporations are required to have by-laws in place as part of their governing documents, and this is precisely where a corporation would define any sort of measures that may implement to offset the gender pay gap. Without specific language to that end, corporations have no obligation that precedes the maximization of profit.

Irrelevant. No one has argued that corporations don't both in theory and practice put profits ahead of all other considerations, including the way they hire, promote, and compensate.

tragabigzanda wrote:My stance, as it relates not only to my wife but all the other intelligent women I'm fortunate to have in my life, is that the pay gap ultimately exists because of social/behavioral mechanisms that are demonstrated in the work place, not because of any corporate laws or economic instruments.

Okay, finally.

Specifically, what social and behavioral mechanisms are you referring to? Do you have any evidence beyond the one or two - or however many intelligent women you have in your life - data points that support your opinion? Why are these mechanisms better explanations of the wage gap than those that are offered in the theoretical and empirical literature on the topic?

Is this because I pooped on your power rankings thread?

No, lazy thinking and bad arguments just get my goat is all.

This conversation descended into useless territory before we even got to the end of page 1, and we've been talking past each other ever since. The quality of the dialogue sucks, and I've stated clearly -- in big, bold letters -- my stance on the issue, while simultaneously admitting I'm no expert.

Have at it, but I don't care.

Mickey wrote:One of the ways I know that I've matured over the years is that I refuse to read what RM thinks about the gender pay gap.

theplatypus wrote:

Mickey wrote:One of the ways I know that I've matured over the years is that I refuse to read what RM thinks about the gender pay gap.

I read this thread nine times

Mickey wrote:One of the ways I know that I've matured over the years is that I refuse to read what RM thinks about the gender pay gap.

Mickey wrote:One of the ways I know that I've matured over the years is that I refuse to read what RM thinks about the gender pay gap.

tree_ wrote:

Mickey wrote:One of the ways I know that I've matured over the years is that I refuse to read what RM thinks about the gender pay gap.

But it's fine to dive headfirst into a GD SJW thread...

--- wrote:

tree_ wrote:

--- wrote:

tree_ wrote:

--- wrote:

tragabigzanda wrote:I spoke to the legalities of setting up a corporation because it has baring on the topic. Corporations are required to have by-laws in place as part of their governing documents, and this is precisely where a corporation would define any sort of measures that may implement to offset the gender pay gap. Without specific language to that end, corporations have no obligation that precedes the maximization of profit.

Irrelevant. No one has argued that corporations don't both in theory and practice put profits ahead of all other considerations, including the way they hire, promote, and compensate.

Relevant if you believe laws are necessary for women to be paid the same as men. What a nightmare.

Oh man we haven't even touched on how stupid "equal pay" laws are!

It's stupid to hear arguments such as these from the mouths of so-called feminists. Is this supposed to be empowering?

The whole point of being liberal is to signal to other liberals that you're liberal. Posing, not understanding, is the principal aim.

4/5 wrote:

--- wrote:

tree_ wrote:

--- wrote:

tree_ wrote:

--- wrote:

tragabigzanda wrote:I spoke to the legalities of setting up a corporation because it has baring on the topic. Corporations are required to have by-laws in place as part of their governing documents, and this is precisely where a corporation would define any sort of measures that may implement to offset the gender pay gap. Without specific language to that end, corporations have no obligation that precedes the maximization of profit.

Irrelevant. No one has argued that corporations don't both in theory and practice put profits ahead of all other considerations, including the way they hire, promote, and compensate.

Relevant if you believe laws are necessary for women to be paid the same as men. What a nightmare.

Oh man we haven't even touched on how stupid "equal pay" laws are!

It's stupid to hear arguments such as these from the mouths of so-called feminists. Is this supposed to be empowering?

The whole point of being liberal is to signal to other liberals that you're liberal. Posing, not understanding, is the principal aim.

There's lots of signaling going on across the political spectrum.

tree_ wrote: I don't care where on the spectrum it exists. Posing without understanding is always stupid.

tree_ wrote:

Green Habit wrote:But for women who want both a family and a professional career, they should have a man that's willing to sacrifice a bit on his end to make that happen.

Agreed. And they have the rights and power to seek such a man before getting pregnant. I don't think men or constructs are holding women down. Based on the stats, I'd argue it's the scenario of choice for most women to focus on family while the husband continues to provide the majority of the financial support.