Nov 2023 Mod notice:
There may be other, more specific, threads about some aspects of US politics, but this one tends to act as a hub for all sorts of related news and information, so it's usually one of the busiest OTC threads.
If you're new to OTC, it's worth reading the Introduction to On-Topic Conversations
and the On-Topic Conversations debate guidelines
before posting here.
Rumor-based, fear-mongering and/or inflammatory statements that damage the quality of the thread will be thumped. Off-topic posts will also be thumped. Repeat offenders may be suspended.
If time spent moderating this thread remains a distraction from moderation of the wiki itself, the thread will need to be locked. We want to avoid that, so please follow the forum rules
when posting here.
In line with the general forum rules, 'gravedancing' is prohibited here. If you're celebrating someone's death or hoping that they die, your post will get thumped. This rule applies regardless of what the person you're discussing has said or done.
Edited by Mrph1 on Nov 30th 2023 at 11:03:59 AM
Just remember, many of our conservatives were threatening to move to Canada should Obama's healthcare plan go into effect. That this is an absurd logic failure is beside the point.
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"Also the fact the president did really bad with his first debate with Romney (he wasn't practicing hard, and there's some speculation he got nailed by a combination of Oxygen deprivation [The First Debate was in the high altitude city of Denver] and Jet Lag [He just flew in that day], while Romney had been in Denver several days and been acclimated to the weather.)
Thirdly, to add, the GOP's party top brass has been pushing Voter ID laws and Voter list purges in Politically contestable states such as Florida, while in the name of preventing Voter Fraud, have been suspiciously targeted at ethnic minorities and Democrats who are likely to vote for the current president.
And fourthly, we have a Tea Party backed anti-voter fraud group called True the Vote who will be trying to observe elections nation wise, but it seems to be their true intentions lean towards "Make sure anyone too brown, black, yellow, tan or female can't vote for the president by intimidation, challenging, and threats, as their votes would be fraudulent."
I wonder if there are any U.S. conservatives who believe in equality between men and women but don't support equal pay legislation. Well, I'm sure there are some out there, whom if you asked them whether men and women are equal, they'd say yes, but then they'd say they would oppose equal pay for equal work legislation.
I'm curious, how do they reconcile the two?
And if the answer is "leave it up to the markets", then what if the market reality is that men are paid more than women for the same amount of the same work?
@GMH: It's a dichotomy that is difficult to resolve through logic. But it generally comes down to either (a) markets being constrained in some way, in which case the solution is to remove restraints on markets until they are able to achieve a "natural equilibrium" (ignoring that this is contrary to historical evidence); or (b) women being unequal players for various reasons unrelated to their inherent capabilities, and while it might be nice to try to fix it, it's not worth it as it would be unwarranted government intrusion, see (a).
edited 23rd Oct '12 10:01:34 AM by Fighteer
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"And if the answer is "leave it up to the markets", then what if the market reality is that men are paid more than women for the same amount of the same work?
The corporate reasoning for unequal rates, if I remember, is that companies consider women more of a substantial financial risk to train, since she can get pregnant, lose work time, and/or quit to be a stay-at-home mother.
Though I might be idiot-ing on that last one.
Can we get a U.S.-style conservative to answer about this?
I understand that the rest of us can attempt to reason through it but I actually would like input from someone with first- or second-hand experience with this.
That said,...
^ (b) contradicts the "men and women are equal" thing, unless you do some logical gymnastics to justify the difference with like "common but differentiated responsibilities" or something.
(a) So yeah, this is the thing that I actually want to see whether that is the case.
edited 23rd Oct '12 10:05:46 AM by GlennMagusHarvey
A couple points:
1) if you look at the set of men who go on paternity leaves, their pay is comparable to the set of women who do the same. However, significantly more women go on maternity leave than men going on paternity leave.
2) Women tend to go into lower paying professions than men. A writer will most likely not be paid the same as an engineer, etc.
Those said, given a man and a woman in equal positions working for equal time, the woman still gets shafted by about 5%, or something to that effect.
But anyway, the idea is that if you pass equal pay legislation, it really won't do anything but get all up in business' faces because the majority of the disparity comes from societal things, not dirty executives.
"Never let the truth get in the way of a good story." Twitter
So... you're not allowed to give society a kick via business legislation, then, when it's in business' long term interest to reach parity, as they'll have a wider selection of individuals to choose from as a pool of workers, and, thus, in theory... be better able to engage with consumers? <confused>
you're allowed to kick businesses with legislation, but it probably won't end up doing anything about the gender differences in occupation choice, or whether mothers or fathers tend to be the ones taking time off to raise their kid.
Then there's also the idea that a business should totally be allowed to pay their employees different amounts for whatever reason in regards to performance, and it's really hard/arbitrary to prove that you're getting paid less due to gender/race/etc rather than being an underperformer.
edited 23rd Oct '12 11:11:01 AM by ch00beh
"Never let the truth get in the way of a good story." TwitterProblems:
1) As noted, even when factors like maternity leave are taken into account, there is still a pay discrepancy for supposedly equal work.
2) There is also a discrepancy in terms of representation of women in various job categories, which gets worse the farther up the ladder you go.
3) Perfect markets theory would seem to imply that businesses would naturally evolve to a point of treating all workers equally for equal work, but in fact businesses are not rational actors. They are self-interested actors who are bound by a vast web of tradition that is profoundly conservative at its core. Absent intervention, people will hire employees who are most like themselves.
edited 23rd Oct '12 11:13:04 AM by Fighteer
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"If I were a douchey HR manager, and I was given the choice between two candidates with equally strong resumes and interviews, I'd probably choose the one that was more homogenous with the rest of the office because I would not want to create unnecessary tension (aka loss in efficiency) in the workplace. It would be douchey because I'd be making the decision, not the rest of the team, so I'd be promoting the homogenous workspace based on my own preconceptions.
That said, usually hiring decisions, at least in my experience, are decided by unanimous votes of approval between the HR person, the interviewers from the team being joined, and the team manager. The criteria is based less on what the person knows and more on how the person works with the team. Is it fair to say "Despite the team as a whole not having good thoughts about this person, because they are ethnic/female/etc, you must hire them"? If the legislation is only for "equally good, equally liked" then how do you prove that when there are subjective criteria going on?
I'm all for equal pay for equal work laws, but it can't be as ham-fisted as "hire/promote x% of this demographic and y% of that demographic" or "all people at equal positions despite possibly doing different things must be paid the same."
edited 23rd Oct '12 11:28:39 AM by ch00beh
"Never let the truth get in the way of a good story." Twitter
And yet thats exactly what affermative action is.
Sometimes it's good. I've heard of women getting hired for jobs they loved and did good work for partially because of affermative action. But I've heard more stories about having to hire a minority who was under-qualified for a position.
I'm baaaaaaackright, and as an ethnic minority, I don't support affirmative action.
"Never let the truth get in the way of a good story." TwitterThose dynamics, ch00beh, lead to institutional discrimination by direct consequence. If the majority of property owners (and hence business owners) are white males, and you apply that "like works better with like" mentality to hiring, then most of the people hired will also be white males. This process will continue indefinitely because it has no incentive to change.
What you're doing is essentially making a large-scale Appeal to Tradition. A diversity of workers allows for a cultural cross-pollination that ultimately improves your ability to adapt to market conditions and expand your products' reach. The "office solidarity" thing is a red herring. It's saying, "We can't change because we've always been this way."
Yes, this is government sticking its nose in business. It has to, because an external force is the only way to break through ritualized institutional racism.
edited 23rd Oct '12 11:43:02 AM by Fighteer
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"I operate under the logic that I as a worker don't want to work somewhwere that I'll be both resented by my peers and unable to keep up with the work. It's like getting a terrible deal that you didn't do anything to deserve. It would be fine to be resented but outperforming everyone as a huge middle finger to them, or it would be okay to underperform but have friendly coworkers that willingly help me out, but getting both negatives would be awful.
The obvious counterpoint is that workers don't usually have that power to choose where they work, but as was pointed out, the discrimination is predominantly at the higher levels where the workers do have the power to choose.
"Never let the truth get in the way of a good story." TwitterUmm... so you would rather choose not to work than to work somewhere you're disliked? By that logic, we'd never have desegregated schools. Someone has to push through the barriers in order to drop them for everyone. You may not wish to be that person, but you're not helping yourself by insisting that we shouldn't abet the process.
edited 23rd Oct '12 12:34:16 PM by Fighteer
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"I meant that in higher level occupations, you have the choice to not work somewhere because you can get hired elsewhere. If there is no where else that can be reasonably gotten to*, that is when the government needs to step in.
Also if there was no elsewhere for me, I'd probably start my own thing because I'm lucky that software has a relatively low barrier to entry. Given markets with low barriers to entry, this is also an option, though unfortunately there is plenty resistance in many markets due to both government regulation and entrenched businesses.
So basically my point boils down to "free market etc" and is reinforced by my personal success in literally everything I've done and therefore can't really mentally accept that institutionalized racism in 2012 is the rule rather than the exception.
"Never let the truth get in the way of a good story." Twitter![]()
Everything you have ever done is anecdotal. Facts point to institutionalized racism (mostly of the unknowing kind) in 2012 being the rule rather than the exception.
As that was already posted, I will comply to the stereotypical troper trait of persecuting you even though you probably didn't know it was posted before but I feel as though I must because you obviously did know from my perspective.
PERSECUTE!
edited 23rd Oct '12 1:10:51 PM by Ekuran
Kids at my highschool were talking about the debate nonstop today. My school hardly ever talked about the other debates... I wonder what made this one so special. In my opinion, last night's debate was boring as hell. The only highlight of last night's debate seemed to have been Obama's "horses and bayonets" comment, which I'll admit was pretty damn clever.
I guess this is how things always are two weeks before a presidential election.
Choobeh: That's a nice story, but others have stories that bear out the necessity for things like affirmative action and the Lily Ledbetter fair pay act. Women and people of minority don't have as much choice as you think they do, or people wouldn't be seeking out legislation to even the playing field and enforce regulations.
Lassez faire sounds great until it starts kicking you in the ass. If we just let businesses do what they want, then the status qou will never change, and institutional bigotry will never get rooted out. (And I think that it's a problem best tackled at the basic educational level, but no one seems eager to reform education in that way.)

Who here likes horses and bayonets?
http://horsesandbayonets.tumblr.com/
"I don't give a rat's ass about going to hell. I guess it's because I feel like I'm already there." -Mugen