So would I actually, come to think of it.

Not too much money though, and I would probably need a minder.

There are studies to backup everyone one of those issues William. You've said you don't like to read so I'm not shocked you haven't come across them.

Whereas most of your positions are based on anecdotes. It's amazing really.
Also can we get another lol at adios posting an obvious chain mail again.

Only an irrational fool would believe your cherry picked idiot studies. Look at your argument from a simple example - there are studies that show a 23 cent gender wage gap. Those studies actually exist. No one here believes that is accurate yet SOME people in this world believe it is true.

Your simpleton statement of "studies to back them up" is complete stupidity. How can any rational person take your position of believing in policies due to being able to back them up with these magical debateable '"studies"?

By no means am I saying they don't have value. Data and studies do have value, we all know this, but to focus solely on one position using situational data is stupid as ****.

Your statement is so infuriatingly stupid. How can any normal person believe that?

More importantly how can our educational system produce people as simple as you? You're an adult, educated and living in the United States of America and you think like a 15 year old high school student. It's a miracle we're all not dead.

Hahaha wil got owned so badly for being racist against Serena Williams 3 years ago we've dunked his ***** ass to rejecting the ****ing scientific method.

Fly you couldn't own me in any single thing in life. I'm sure you realize that.

Yo, **** data.

We should have a discussion about it, actually. Data is important, but manipulating it or presenting it in a certain light to push an agenda seems downright evil.

I know people have said things like there are no solutions, only tradeoffs, and as time goes by I agree with that more and more.

This is inaccurate, as I've tried to explain to you before. The ~20% statistic does not come from an academic study, it comes from Bureau of Labor Statistics data. That data shows that the median weekly wage for a woman employed full time (>35 hrs/wk) is about 80% of the median weekly wage for a man employed full time. A few years ago, the figure was 77%, which is the number you use. The preceding sentences are factual, supported by years of BLS data. The statistic is absolutely accurate.

Your problem is that you conflate factual claims, like the one above, with other claims about the causes of the gap, which you dispute, and pretend that people who assert the claim above are really asserting the other claims. Note that my statement about the BLS data says nothing about the cause of the 20% difference in median weekly wages. It makes no claims about controlling for various factors, not even hours worked, except that it only compares workers who are "full time". It makes no claim that the cause of the difference is exclusively discrimination.

Many academic studies of the wage gap will reference the BLS data. They also use other data sources to attempt to understand the causes of the difference in the median. I've previously cited this useful article which references most of the recent work. Neither that article, nor any other I've ever seen, cites the BLS data in support of the conclusion that the difference in median wages is solely the result of discrimination. I doubt you can find a single study that makes a claim like that. Your dismissal of scientific research on this basis is absolutely unwarranted, based in your continued refusal to understand what the various data mean.

I understand that the percentage is accurate. The reasons WHY is what is important, not the actual result! Women make less because they have children and it seems tend to prefer work-life balance over focusing on income. Men tend to do the opposite.

The government SHOULD NOT BE INVOLVED IN THIS.

Do you agree with the above statement or not? If you actually screwed around with the way men and women were paid then it would cause an issue the other way - women who were never married or had children would be overly compensated, creating yet another problem.

Jesus. Why can't we come to some sort of agreement in this argument? I KNOW the statistic is accurate. I'm saying using that in an argument for policy is an awful idea.

we can have a wage gap thread rather than talk about in the god emperors throne room

You are misrepresenting your own position. You wrote:

I am not making an argument about what kinds of policy responses may or may not be justified by the BLS data, I am responding to your assertion that scientific studies should be discounted because they make false claims. Your example of a supposedly false claim made by studies of the wage gap is entirely wrong, as you yourself are now acknowledging when you admit that the statistic is accurate. The entire point of your previous quote was to say that the statistic was not accurate!

You are correct. Fine. I'm saying the data is being used in a way to paint a false narrative - that females are paid less due to discrimination.

Before we go on, do you agree with that statement?

Ownage.

I worked there in the 80's. They have been automating long before that.

you the type of guy that thinks mcenroe was being racist and sexist?

There's no ownage here at all. Him being correct about something doesnt invalidate my overall argument. There is a very good reason why well named is doing what he's doing and I think anyone paying attention should realize it.

I'm sure it's true that the BLS statistic is sometimes used to imply a stronger conclusion than is warranted by politicians and activists. This is not an uncommon occurrence in politics, on any issue. I don't believe that criticism applies to any actual study I've seen, however.

I'm not terribly interested in defending the honor of random other people making other claims about the wage gap. I've always tried to present the issue fairly as I understand it, and the only actual policy I've ever argued for was the UK policy requiring companies to disclose their wage gaps. Otherwise, I've pointed out repeatedly that I think the intent of a lot of feminist consciousness-raising is to change culture, not just government.

So... You admit the way the statistics are used in arguments is a bad thing, but you aren't interested in arguing it.

It would be the equivalent of me saying Asians are underrepresented in the NBA, and then suggesting we find ways to equal that out. The argument is absurd. The problem is many leftist arguments are exactly like that, except reversed.

Yes, I admit that sometimes people misuse statistical data, or the results of scientific studies, when making various arguments. Given that I'm conceding that point, what would I be arguing with you about on that topic?

If I see someone doing the above, I try to correct them. One of my motivations for writing longer posts on controversial topics in this forum, and trying to be rigorous in my use of research, is to provide information that might be helpful to people who want to understand these issues better in order to avoid those problems. Of course, my other motivation is to try to persuade yet other people that these issues are real and that they should care about them, but I expect I'm more likely to succeed on the first point.

I disagree with your analogy and rejection of "many leftist arguments" as a general statement, but I think it's far more productive to focus on specific arguments than some general assessment of the quality of "leftist" political discourse. Although, on the general topic, I'll point out that you keep making statements like this (cf. this post). I'm happy to concede that liberals, leftists, Democrats, etc. don't always get everything right. But I roll my eyes at these posts because you seem oblivious to the fact that, by any objective standard, the state of the modern conservative movement is far, far, worse.

You need to learn to condense this to lolwil

That's your job :P

"fact was wrong but the point is right mmmkay"

LOL the ghost of ikestoys' idiocy lives on. wil has never lost an argument in his life, you guys, even when the things he posts are blatantly untrue!

No worries.

wil, caring about people's feelings is not the same as relying on feelings when data is available.

The argument "we should solve poverty because poor people are sad" is a different use of 'feels' than the argument "there is no poverty because I feel rich".

lolwil