Lived up to my expectations, lol

This the guy complaining about my study being done by a woman ERGO biased?

You gotta be lol kidding me. Where's a slow clap gif when you need one?

I think Rasta complained about it being biased. Sputnik I think has just ignored it.

Ya don't Sherlock

So what?

Yeah lets look to generalise in a debate about sexism
Ugh, no.

Good grief this is unbelievable

No, for the umpteenth time I don't know what causes the overall wage gap between men and women, and nor do I claim to.

You however, claim that you do know the cause of the gap.

Now you have to provide evidence (from a neutral and unbiased source).

So you don't know what words mean related to scientific research. That's fun.

This is an important thing to point out to identity-obsessed social justice warriors such as yourself.

It shouldn't be, but it is. If you could somehow confirm that I lived in a white, suburban neighborhood with an exclusively white friendship group (the kind that most of you no doubt stereotyped me as having), you'd all leap on it instantly as a source of ad-hominem attacks.

You're from Sheffield I presume with a name like that? Yorkshire being white as a sheet of course.

I'd bet a lot of money that you're embarrassed by the demographic of your friendship group. You shouldn't be of course, but I'm quite confident that the fact that I've got more demographic diversity among my friends (despite being a horrible, hateful conservative) is a source of annoyance to you.

And of course, a source of amusement to me.

Like I say, find me an example of an intelligent person who can confidently win a debate by presenting the facts who chooses instead, to stoop to personal insults.

If I am a rapist, a murderer, a paedophile and a loser who lives at home in his mother's basement at the age of 54, it doesn't change the fact that you're going to have to back up your baseless assertions with evidence I'm afraid.

But you claim it's absolutely definitely not discrimination. How do you know that?

I don't know what you consider neutral and unbiased. The resume study you dismissed followed standard and accepted protocols. What didn't you like about it?

You're too dumb to understand the facts. Nor frankly do I care about convincing you. I understand you'll hold onto your beliefs regardless of the facts. It's a pretty well understood phenomenon. So I'm just here mocking you and not trying to win a debate.

Nope.

For (what I believe is) the sixth time in this thread I'm going to have to repeat myself:

I don't know what the cause is. You claim however, that you do.

Who knows? maybe it is discrimination. You'll just have to provide us with some evidence to prove it.

Nevertheless, its certainly something that I don't think there's any real reason to be particularly curious about. There's tonnes of demographic variance in loads of things, even within things where we actually can be sure that there's no discrimination and where people really are given a completely free choice.

One thing that springs to mind (I went to a football match today so its on my mind) is the ethnic composition of football crowds.

Walk through Plaistow or Aston (West Ham/Aston Villa's local areas) and its like walking through a cross between Sierra Leone and Pakistan.

Get into the stadium and there'll be about six non-white people there.

Yet there's absolutely no difference whatsoever in the levels of popularity in football across different ethnic groups. Black, white, Asian, we all love it.

For some reason however, actually going to a match just isn't as appealing to those within BAME groups.

The likes of the BBC have actually investigated this phenomenon a fair few times in the past and consistently been frustrated by the number of Asian lads who love football, play for a local team and would never miss keenly sitting through a Super Sunday at the Shisha lounge, but just aren't all that arsed about going to matches.

"erm...nah...I just...prefer watching on TV " they say when interviewed, slightly bemused.

It actually ends up providing quite a good example of how there'll be demographic swings and anomalies even in the confirmed absence of discrimination. That's probably why its not investigated as much.

Anyway I'm off to bed. Its almost midnight here and I've got to be up at 6am for the gym before work.

Night all x

I don't see where you answered that. You said something about business owners being OK with sacrificing some profit to have employees they are comfortable with. Even if this is true for 99% of business owners, wouldn't a few ruthless companies take advantage of this cheap labor?

Yeah, it was covered. Both by me and even better by the quote from fly.

Like I thought, crickets.

Here, since you don't seem willing to read the previous posts. Here's the summary:

I am curious, what percentage of soap opera viewers do you figure as women? Can I ask what anyone would attribute the difference to if it is not 50%? Or, for the nitpickers, what percentage of viewers who are able to watch during the hours the shows play?

That's your answer to my question? I'm sure that is econ101 pay more for labor when you could pay less!! You won't answer the question because you are a disingenuous douche!

Do you not watch the news or listen to Hillary Clinton? All business owners are greedy, ruthless and evil! They enjoy firing a bunch of perfectly good hard working Americans and move the jobs overseas or replace the workers with machines just to save money!

Those evil business owners will replace American jobs with foreigners or machines, but not even Hillary has the audacity to say that the business owners are so greedy that they are willing to fire hard working Americans to hire women.

Your guys theory literally implies discrimination of any sort won't happen. It has and does.

Like fly said if you have a theory that doesn't match the facts, then your theory is wrong or at best incomplete.

That still isn't an answer... One more time,since you claim you can pay women and minorities less for the same work why haven't any companies taken advantage of this?

This thread is showing symptoms of HIV

Rasta, I'm behind in this conversation.

What's your complaint about the research study I shared re: Yale and the Lab Manager job?

Here's another example.

http://www8.gsb.columbia.edu/newsroo...n-stem-careers

In my opinion, the libertarian solution to this is the best one. I believe in lax discrimination laws in private industry. If the women are doing 'equal work' for 25% less, someone should be able to hire as many women as they want and crush their competition.

I do think government agencies should be open to charges of nepotism and cronyism, though.

Has anyone ever heard of people working in industry complaining about having to hire men at 25% more cost? Isn't that something that the market would grumble about and try to fix?

One more time, it's been discussed here ITT. Like, you can read the whole discussion bahbah and I had about it where I have multiple examples where your efficiency example doesn't hold.

And now you've gone further and mixed up what you're talking about. Nobody is saying companies are allowed to pay women less. To try to carry that out as a plan is blatantly illegal (this was also pointed out previously).

And so, I'm sorry that the response to your simplistic questions are a bit involved and I don't care about you personally enough to rehash the whole discussion.

Where is Fly when you need him? As much as I'd like to deal with this I wouldn't do it justice.

Lol. Another one! I've literally only met one libertarian on this forum who I respect and has actual knowledge of economics.

Sweep, here's a good reason it's not worth rehashing the whole discussion (and then some). Another one of you simpletons will just pop up and demand explanations.

I respect everyone that isn't a complete a-hole or criminal. Most of the libertarians I've met are clear thinking rational people. Nice generalization on your part. It's ok to generalize when you're talking about white guys, though.