Hahahaha oh man is it hilarious to see internet libertarians post things like this just assuming that the efficiency of markets is infallible universal truth and getting left in this confused childlike state when things happen in the real world that seem to conflict with this view.

I mean, of COURSE black people are lazy, the market tells us this is so!!

So up until January 29, 2009, ikestoys acknowledges Democrats were better on the wage gap, but after that day both parties were equal again. Got it.

That "Mad Men" zinger from the SotU must have stung pretty hard. Good thing Obamacare covers butthurt.

Also, easiest racism ban ever for bucco.

4 is really the only thing that will have any sort of affect imo. And while republicans opposed it, I don't see any sort of push to change the sols on the cra again.

And 4 really isn't going to have much of an effect. I don't think the ledbetter case is a very standard kind of case.

On the surface this does nothing.

Seems counter productive in that it appears to me to be a disincentive to economic growth. In a global economy where companies can and do take their business to locations that have more favorable circumstances this seems like a measure guaranteed to raise their costs.

My understanding is that the overwhelming majority of workers in the private sector don't belong to unions. So I guess you're stating you'd like to see private sector union participation increase substantially. Ok but I think you would have to do a sell job on that one given what I understand the sentiment to be regarding this. Maybe this ties into 1.


I guess, it seems to have had little impact.

A little strange for you not to even acknowledge the benefits of higher economic growth that creates more demand for labor.

I agree with most of what Ikes is saying, but not really going to blame Dems for taking the easy political points given some of the lol women's social issue views that make Republicans pretty easy punching bags here.

[QUOTE=adios;41980911]On the surface this does nothing.[quote]

If people don't believe that there's a gap, then there's no political will to change anything.



And yet this is pretty common in Europe, and there are still businesses there.



Sure.

Bet sports ldo

Identical paternity leave seems rather wasteful if men just don't care nearly as much about nurturing as women do. If you gave a typical married father six month's paternity leave, he might change the nappies once a week but otherwise probably treat it as an extended vacation. I'm pretty sure this at least partly biological, not merely a cultural norm. And even if it is entirely cultural, it doesn't matter if those cultural norms remain strong.

If women are just inherently prone to to wanting to play caregiver, then nothing will eliminate the pay gap without heavy distortions. It's not purely a gender thing. If men frequently took months off work with little warning, frequently quit or moved to jobs where flexibility was important, you'd find men would suddenly get paid less than women.

I very much disagree. Studies have shown pretty consistently that the biggest bias in the workforce, even when controlling for hours worked and career, or when using otherwise identical applications, is against mothers specifically. Women without children don't experience as much bias. One likely explanation for this is the expectation of HR and upper management to presuppose that women will need more time off than men, for maternity leave or other things. By mandating that all men are eligible for paid paternity leave if their partner has a child, that builds in parental leave as a cost of doing business with any employee, not just a cost of doing business with female employees. Furthermore, women may have to seek out jobs that offer lower wages in exchange for better leave benefits, even if the total compensation over a career ends up with them being a little worse off. By removing leave from the calculation, women are more free to seek the best wage compensation they can achieve.

We could even consider taking this one step further and mandating companies offer a certain number of days off per year for family or personal needs for any employee regardless of gender, family, or marital status, addressing the prejudice that mothers will need more time off to take care of kids than fathers will, even well after giving birth.

That assumption is ignoring the other factors that have resulted in millennia of male-dominated societies, unless you think women inherently wanting to play caregiver just explains all of it.

Im in favor of the policy, but I think you'll see usage skew so heavily in favor of females that it will have a limited effect.

The sad thing is that ikes has tried this **** before re: abortion and probably some other ****. Republicans favor position X, Democrats favor position Y, Democrats have implemented their agenda more successfully so that actual policy is close to position Y, ergo there's no difference between the parties and actually the REAL bad guys here are the Democrats for, uh, something.

The **** does that even make sense in your head?

"Yes, Republicans support policies are are explicitly and directly bad for you, but they probably won't be able to implement them, so vote Republican, ladies!"

How widely available is paternity leave right now? I have a hard time seeing myself not taking off a solid chunk of time for the birth of a child if that time is available. Why wouldn't men use it?

Are there specific fields/professions that the gap exists in? If you can find that then you could work on solving the problem.

Im pretty sure I have it available in MA, not sure if its paid. I do know people that have it and use it (mostly in law firms FWIW). Im pretty sure everywhere in the financial industry taking more than like a week as a guy would be a really horribad career move (Women taking time off hasnt really been a factor where Ive worked, mothers were well represented at the partner level, but can guarantee men taking extensive time off would not be looked at the same way)

Lol'd at "internet libertarian"

The article actually says the reason is that blacks have lower IQs which I haven't researched or verified and dont plan to.

But it makes sense that someone with a lower IQ would earn less money on average. That probably applies to all races both genders etc. Do people really think that the labor market is that inefficient that highly qualified black people are sitting at home while some white guy gets promoted even though he's not nearly as hard working, smart, valuable to the company?

Do people really think things like min wage laws dont distort the labor market? Loll

Do you really want to argue that the labor market is perfectly efficient or that there is a material productivity difference between (to pick an example) the 65th percentile and 75th percentile mechanical engineer?

Do you think its more likely that somehow the pigmentation of skin correlates with/causes lower IQs or that there are structural issues in an economy where segregation was legal only 60 years ago?

I will try to articulate what Ike's is snarling and gesticulating about into an actual wrongdoing. I think he means that the democrats are trying cash in on an idea that is popular but known by them to be a misconception. The democrats are exploiting the ignorance of the populace and lying to reinforce a demographic split in support which favors them.

As we learned in another thread this week, where Ikes accused another posted of taking joy in catching Ikes on a technicality, the quickest way to induce Ike's ire and righteous indignation is to use his standard tactics at all, even just a little, while being the opposition.

Hahahahahahahahahahahaha

Of course the labor market isn't perfectly efficient. Minimum wage laws, unemployment insurance, affirmative action, unions, and government workers ensure that it won't be for a long time to come.

Yet you find the idea that black people have a lower IQ pretty convincing....

So random question: If AC people and libertarians aren't racists why do all of them seem to flame out in the politics forum by getting banned for racism?

I'm sure the mods can back this up... But what ever happened to the rest of them?

EDIT: Seriously though do bucco a huge favor and put him down. Stop laughing at him in the grave he dug for himself and do it already. He's an idiot who we've all enjoyed mocking but messing with him is starting to bother me.

I don't think caregiving preferences explain everything.