Total posts: 28,020
Posted in:
-->
@ILikePie5
There are many cursory comparisons of Obama's case for privacy with releasing his long-form birth certificate and Trump releasing his tax returns.
What do you think the critical difference between those two cases might be?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@CaptainSceptic
I don't know why Trump cares so much about his tax returns when it's so obvious he is A Russian spy in 2018, a Ukrainian spy in 2019, and A Chinese spy in 2020.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ILikePie5
New country needs a new Anthem. Preferably with a Latin beat.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ILikePie5
Those same athletes wouldn't think twice about kneeling during the Chinese anthem.
Created:
Posted in:
Hmm...socio-economic...
There are 2 schools of thought on the socio.
A) Your skin color matters and only a white-skinned person (or tan Asian) can improve you.
B) Your skin color does not set a limit on how much you choose to improve yourself.
There are 2 schools of thought on the economic.
A) Your skin pigmentation matters and only welfare funded by white people (or tan Asians) can assist you.
B) Your skin color does not dictate your job opportunities, and in fact, supporting Trump's economic policies invariably leads to less unemployment and more job and job training opportunities, regardless of the shade of your skin.
Created:
-->
@Jeff_Goldblum
Objectively, the well-being of the human species is on the rise as nature is powerless at the moment with all her tools and tricks to limit our population as a species.
Even the most dire and least verifiable predictions of climate change show little effect on the juggernaut population boom of the entirety of the human species in the foreseeable future.
Human species adaptability has come a long way since 75,000 years ago, and that adaptability is rising exponentially with the digital assistance of increasing computer power, our most powerful tool. Nature is going to need something a hell of a lot more drastic to change than just the climate to counter that exponential growth in the adaptability of the human species, since we, as a species show little to no interest in slowing that growth ourselves. Say what you will about "Luddites," perhaps they are looking past the foreseeable future.
Created:
-->
@Discipulus_Didicit
I understand, but those are, more or less, threats to individuals and not the species as a whole. It's a small but very important distinction.
Created:
-->
@Jeff_Goldblum
but we have to survive urgent threats to our species.
I think the actual threat to the "species" of humans is vastly overblown. Historically, our lowest point as a species was long, long ago about 75,000 years ago. We are so much more technologically advanced at this point that even a super meteor impact wouldn't put the human species anywhere near the levels of crisis as 75,000 years ago when there were only a few thousand humans alive. 7 billion humans is a staggering amount for a planet this size considering the species needs far fewer than that to sustain viable offspring. While individuals may rise and fall and standards of living change, the future of humans looks very solid over the long haul millions of years looking forward. We are arguably the most adaptive species the planet has ever produced.
Created:
-->
@Discipulus_Didicit
There is also a biological factor to consider. The elusive "god gene" that propels humans to find meaning for their short lifespans.
More people are happier and more productive chasing the stars than chasing the latest daily coupon from taco-bell.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Athias
IVY League schools..
Especially specific schools funded by the Chinese Communist Government.
It's also a shame that mass media early on took Chinese propaganda and ran it as the truth before the public discovered what was going on.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Dr.Franklin
And Harvard cares about America while accepting hundreds of millions in Chinese direct cash payments. At least what we know about. Those highly educated people probably have billions more in Chinese money offshore we haven't yet caught them with.
Created:
-->
@sadolite
An attempt to overthrow a sitting President by lying and fabricating evidence and submitting that evidence to the courts and the FBI to conduct surveillance on a private citizen in an attempt to destroy their attempt at a Presidential bid. Then again fabricating evidence to investigate a sitting President.
Obama is probably much more responsible for this than Biden. At least from the recovered FBI documents that vindicated Flynn.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@bmdrocks21
Do you remember this story about a Harvard Professor working for the Chinese government?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@bmdrocks21
Also, China donated hundreds of millions to Harvard's endowment fund, which is around 41 billion dollars.
Why the fuck would anyone trust Harvard? They are the epitome of elites who have 41 billion reasons not to care about America.
Created:
-->
@Jeff_Goldblum
Is this a forum discussion for all or just you and DD?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Athias
The motive is certainly there for China to destabilize the US economy considering the policy changes over the last 3 years. However, the accounts from the now missing and presumed dead Chinese scientists say they were aware of the virus long before January.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Athias
From a bit of cursory research on viruses and lab-created viruses, the consensus seems to be the genetic markers of Covid19 seem to line up with natural viral instances and do not show the DNA markers of a lab-created virus. That's not to say a natural virus couldn't be released from a lab where it was being studied.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@fauxlaw
Rahm Emanuel's "Never let a crisis go to waste."
Hillary Clinton actually had the balls recently to repeat the phrase for her trained seals.
Created:
Posted in:
Harvard journal article states that MSM supporters are more likely to stay classically conditioned once trained.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@n8nrgmi
take back our country. CNN 2020. Make TVMedia Great Again.
Created:
-->
@n8nrgmi
Don't be sad. Quarantine is almost over. You can soon go back to clapping when the applause light comes on.
Created:
Posted in:
Trump planned it as part of his ongoing effort to destroy the democratically elected media and destroy the country.
Created:
-->
@ILikePie5
What is sad is the media, just like the FBI, knows the story is bullshit from their own investigations, but they cover up EVERYTHING just to get their narrative out and project their power. The public only discovers the truth months, maybe years after if at all. So much fake shit with an obvious agenda.
Created:
-->
@TheDredPriateRoberts
Update:
Chloroquine lady now confirmed to have been on bad terms with now-dead husband with Divorce paper filings and other evidence from police reports.
Chloroquine lady now confirmed to be anti-Trump from past social media evidence, monetary contributions to the Democrat party, and voting registration.
Chloroquine lady now confirmed to be violent and prone to outbursts as noted in court documents.
Created:
Posted in:
Activist former president
When the White House changes hands from one party to another, it's normal for the new president to revoke executive orders issued by the old, such as when Obama reversed former President George W. Bush's restrictions on taxpayer-funded embryonic stem-cell research.
These types of conflicts are normal when the White House changes hands from one party to another. The new president will revoke executive orders issued by the old, such as when Obama reversed former President George W. Bush's restrictions on taxpayer-funded embryonic stem-cell research. Or when Bush reinstated the Mexico City policy banning federal money for international family planning groups that perform abortions, which had been overturned by former President Clinton eight years earlier. The former president's party will resist these changes, as when Republicans spent much of the Obama administration trying to preserve the Bush tax cuts.
What is abnormal, and arguably unprecedented, is for the departed president to remain such an active participant in this process, indeed perhaps its leader. Some legacy protection and political involvement is expected. Obama has remained a political combatant.
"I hope that current members of Congress recall that it actually doesn't take a lot of courage to aid those who are already powerful, already comfortable, already influential," Obama said after the House passed a bill partially repealing and replacing Obamacare as he accepted the Profile in Courage Award at the John F. Kennedy Library in May. "But it does require some courage to champion the vulnerable and the sick and the infirm."
When Senate Republicans unveiled their version of the healthcare bill later that month, Obama blasted it as "a massive transfer of wealth from middle-class and poor families to the richest people in America." He added, "[I]f there's a chance you might get sick, get old, or start a family — this bill will do you harm."
Obama accused Trump of aligning the U.S. with "a small handful of nations that reject the future" when he left the Paris Agreement. "I believe the United States of America should be at the front of the pack," said Obama, who was, ironically, often associated with the phrase "leading from behind."
Ten days after leaving office, Obama issued a statement through a spokesman condemning Trump's controversial immigration and travel executive order. The statement said "the president fundamentally disagrees with the notion of discriminating against individuals because of their faith or religion," a reference to Obama, the ex-president, not Trump, the Oval Office's current occupant.
Obama was treated differently by his own predecessor, even though he took frequent jabs at Bush both during the 2008 campaign and long after taking office. "He deserves my silence," Bush said of Obama in a March 2009 speech. "There's plenty of critics in the arena. I think it's time for the ex-president to tap dance off the stage and let the current president have a go at solving the world's problems."
Annie Linskey and Victoria McGran wrote in the Boston Globe in June, "There's a longstanding practice among the fraternity of former US presidents: Don't publicly criticize your successor, but if you must, do it only in the most oblique way possible."
Ten days after leaving office, Obama issued a statement through a spokesman condemning President Trump's controversial immigration and travel executive order.
"I want to be respectful of the office and give the president-elect an opportunity to put forward his platform and his arguments without somebody popping off in every instance," Obama said at a press conference near the end of his administration, acknowledging Bush had been "gracious." "As an American citizen who cares deeply about our country, if there are issues that have less to do with the specifics of some legislative proposal but go to core questions about our values and our ideals, and if I think that it is necessary or helpful for me to defend those ideals, I'll examine it when it comes."
The conflict between Obama and Trump was inevitable. Obama is only 56, less than a year older than the median age at which presidents have taken office. He didn't even leave Washington, D.C., after moving out of the White House, and has a residence in the Kalorama district of the capital, about 25 minutes walk from his old home at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue.
For his part, Trump helped build his political following by questioning Obama's birthplace and eligibility for the presidency. Obama in turn ridiculed Trump at a White House Correspondents Dinner, a slight that by some accounts contributed to his motivation to run in 2016 after flirting with campaigns in prior years and never launching them.
Trump has criticized his predecessor even more than Obama found fault with Bush, and often in less refined terms. Trump has also blamed Obama holdovers for White House leaks and questioned, without producing evidence, whether the previous administration wiretapped Trump Tower or otherwise subjected him to illegal surveillance. Some contend Trump has shed so many political conventions, it invites Obama to do the same.
Obama has since thrown his weight behind the Holder-chaired National Democratic Redistricting Committee, going beyond merely defending his legacy or his ideals. He's atoning for his biggest failure as a Democratic Party leader: the pounding Democrats took in down-ballot races during his eight years in office.
Obama prospered personally. He was elected and reelected, the first Democrat to win an absolute majority of the popular vote since Jimmy Carter in 1976. In 2008, he took the biggest percentage of that vote of any Democratic presidential candidate since Lyndon Johnson in 1964. But Democrats lost 12 governorships, nine Senate seats, 62 House seats, and over 900 state legislative seats, enduring what Obama memorably described as a "shellacking" in both midterm elections.
Redrawing the lines
The Obama-Holder group plowed $500,000 into Virginia Democratic Party coffers to support Ralph Northam's quest to be elected governor over Republican Ed Gillespie.
The former president has said publicly that this is partly due to his own failings. But he has also seized on an opportunity both for personal exculpation and activism by blaming a Republican redistricting advantage. "We lost control of a lot of not just congressional seats but also governorships and state legislative seats and that happened to be the year that the census was done and you start doing redistricting," he told reporters at a press conference. "And so those Republicans took advantage of political gerrymandering to lock in majorities even though in numerous subsequent elections Democrats have actually cast more votes or more votes have been cast for Democratic congressional candidates than Republicans, and yet, you end up having large Republican majorities.
"So, there are just structural problems we have to deal with," Obama added. "But, look, you can't make excuses about the rules. That's the deal, and we have to do better."
Obama is trying to help Democrats do better. He reemerged to headline a fundraiser for the group in July, less than six months after leaving office. The National Democratic Redistricting Committee reportedly raised $10.8 million for its affiliates in the first half of 2017.
The Obama-Holder group plowed $500,000 into Virginia Democratic Party coffers to support Ralph Northam's quest to be elected governor over Republican Ed Gillespie. Virginia's next governor will be elected in November and will have veto power over the redrawn district lines in 2021 after the census.
Democrats have had increasing success statewide in Virginia, which hasn't voted for a GOP presidential candidate since 2004. But Republicans still hold both houses of the state legislature, including a nearly two-thirds majority of the lower chamber, and seven of the 11 congressional seats. Gillespie, a former Republican National Committee chairman, ironically helped his party take over statehouses with the 2010 census in mind. Northam is the sitting lieutenant governor.
Republicans express confidence in their own redistricting efforts and note they have enjoyed a turnout advantage in recent off-year elections. They also point out that Democrats failed to recreate the Obama coalition in the first presidential election in which he wasn't on the ballot.
Texas Gov. Greg Abbott just watched George Soros pour $500,000 into ads in a Harris County district attorney race where a Democratic challenger unseated the Republican incumbent.
But not everyone is convinced. "I think we're asleep at the switch on this," said a Republican strategist who requested anonymity to speak candidly. "This [Obama-Holder redistricting committee] is no joke."
One high-profile Republican elected official who has been sounding the alarm is Abbott, the governor of Texas. Liberal groups have been trying to turn the Lone Star State blue for years, knowing that would strike a devastating blow to the GOP's Electoral College chances. Texas is one of just four states where Clinton outperformed Obama.
Abbott just watched George Soros pour $500,000 into ads in a Harris County district attorney race where a Democratic challenger unseated the Republican incumbent. He thinks the Obama-Holder campaign could command significant resources.
"If Republicans don't wake up about this threat, it could cause dramatic changes in the electoral map in this country," Abbott told the Washington Examiner. "If they are able to redraw the maps, all the best political strategies are going to be thwarted not by people who vote but by judges who vote, as Obama and Holder know."
Until then, Obama finds himself back in the thick of the political action. He's still taking his shots at Trump, and administration alumni such as Holder are providing cover. And he's working on a goal that eluded him while in office: rebuilding his party's bench at the state level.
It's like he's never left.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ILikePie5
Obama is the most invasive and intrusive ex-president in the history of ex-presidents.
The Obama rapid response team quickly swung into action against the latest Republican move on immigration last week. The new policy was "wrong." It was "self-defeating." It was "cruel." It wasn't "required legally," but was "a political decision."
Only two things were unusual about this strong Democratic pushback: Barack Obama was no longer in office at the time — and yet all the above responses came from the former president himself.
If the 2016 presidential election seems like a never-ending contest, with vanquished Democratic candidate Hillary Clinton constantly relitigating the campaign and criticizing the man who ultimately bested her, the tug-of-war between President Trump and his immediate predecessor has been just as intense.
"He is like our president-in-exile," joked a Democratic operative who requested anonymity to speak candidly about the former president. "His profile makes sense, because while we Democrats and really the whole country owe President Obama a lot, he does have some things to answer for in terms of our current situation" with Republicans controlling both ends of Pennsylvania Avenue.
What merited Obama's latest statement against his successor was Trump's decision to rescind the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program, an Obama executive order put in place to shield young illegal immigrants from deportation when Congress declined to pass immigration legislation the former president supported. The announcement that it would be phased out after six months, with Congress given an opportunity to pass legislation replacing it, was made by Attorney General Jeff Sessions, a leading opponent of Obama's immigration policies as a Republican senator from Alabama.
An Obama-era predecessor of Sessions' was quick to rebuke the current attorney general for calling DACA "an ‘open-borders policy' that admitted ‘everyone.' "
Former Attorney General Eric Holder has emerged as a front man of sorts for his former boss President Barack Obama's unprecedentedly activist post-presidency. (AP Photos)
"To the contrary," former Attorney General Eric Holder wrote in the Washington Post on Sept. 6, "it was a beacon of hope for a narrowly defined group who crossed our borders before they could have fully understood what a ‘border' was."
Holder wasn't done. "States must resist Trump's inevitable deportation efforts," he continued. "The private sector must come together to defend its employees. Americans must raise their voices — and use their ballots."
Obama and Holder remain partners in an effort to persuade Democratic voters to do just that. This involves playing defense when Obama policies are attacked by the new administration, and also offense as they try to elect Democrats, especially in races that will influence redistricting after the 2020 census.
One of those efforts is getting an assist from left-wing billionaire George Soros, who spent half a million dollars on ads into a district attorney race in Texas in which a Democrat challenger beat the Republican incumbent. That has prompted Texas Gov. Greg Abbott to tell other Republicans that they need to "wake up" to what Obama and others are up to.
Holder has emerged as a front man of sorts for his former bosses' unprecedentedly activist post-presidency. Before Obama even left office, Holder launched the National Democratic Redistricting Committee, a tax-exempt 527 political action committee that bills itself as "an organization of Democratic leaders enacting a comprehensive, multi-cycle Democratic Party redistricting strategy over the next 5 years and beyond." The group will also support legal challenges and ballot initiatives as they try to wipe out what they argue is an unfair Republican advantage.
"Republican gerrymandered districts after the 2010 Census have put Democrats at a massive structural disadvantage," a statement on the National Democratic Redistricting Committee's website said. "That's why the most important turning point for the future of the Democratic Party will take place in 2021: when states redraw their congressional and state legislative lines." The committee did not respond to a request for comment.
House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., who would surely like to regain the speaker's gavel after the 2018 midterm elections.
"We heard a lot in this past election about rigged systems, but I want to say the biggest rigged system in America is gerrymandering," Holder said in January. "A system where the lines are drawn not to represent American communities, but benefit politicians. A system where politicians pick their voters."
House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., who would surely like to regain the speaker's gavel after the 2018 midterm elections, and Virginia Gov. Terry McAuliffe joined the group's initial fundraiser. "Heavyweight leadership indicates Democrats are serious about dealing with redistricting, which the party blissfully ignored before 2010," said Brad Bannon, a Democratic strategist.
In the meantime, opportunities for conflict have presented themselves as Trump has sought to undo many Obama initiatives. The 45th president has pulled the United States out of the Trans-Pacific Partnership and the Paris climate agreement, both negotiated by the Obama administration. Trump may be on the verge of doing the same with the Obama administration-negotiated Iran nuclear deal.
"If the president finds that he cannot in good faith certify Iranian compliance, he would initiate a process whereby we move beyond narrow technicalities and look at the big picture," said Trump-appointed U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations Nikki Haley in a speech this month to the American Enterprise Institute.
Trump has tried to cajole a Republican-controlled Congress into repealing and replacing Obamacare, the healthcare law that was Obama's signature domestic policy achievement, and informally bears his name. The new president has called Obamacare a "disaster," a "fiction," and a "big, fat, ugly lie."
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ILikePie5
An activist judge was the catalyst for the review of the FBI documents and ultimately the reason for Flynn's case being dropped.
It's very rare to see an activist judge get so humiliated.
From NPR:
In a strange twist, what might have set the stage for Flynn's eventual release was an encounter with an outspoken judge who raised the prospect of punishing him more severely.
Nearly everyone, including Trump, expected Flynn to be sentenced in late 2018 when he appeared before Judge Emmet Sullivan in Washington. Flynn and prosecutors invited family members to be with them in court.
But the judge yielded surprises and headlines with his spirited remarks about the case.
"I'm not hiding my disgust, my disdain, for this criminal offense," he said.
Sullivan asked prosecutors whether Flynn might have committed "treason," raising the prospect that Flynn might get prison time after all. No, the government said, it didn't consider that part of the case.
Ultimately, Sullivan deferred the sentencing because he said he had more questions about the matter, adding more months to Flynn's legal saga.
If Sullivan had simply issued a sentence then and resolved Flynn's case, Flynn's admissions and guilt might have stood. His legal odyssey might have ended there.
Instead, the activist judge's delay led to the phase of the story in which Flynn replaced his attorneys and broke with the government. His new legal team fought for and obtained the FBI memos and sought to rescind the guilty plea.
That dispute was still ongoing when the Justice Department decided this week to drop the case. In the end, Flynn and his lawyers outlasted everyone.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ILikePie5
I don't think anything is going to happen to the FBI rogues that were fired.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@blamonkey
Are you gonna edit the comment again? This seems to me like you ceded sarcastically.
Ok dude, if you wanna take this to the Ad Hom level, I'll just leave.
I'm not interested in that kind of banter.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@blamonkey
Ceding what? I'm waiting for actual data, not hypotheticals.
Show me some successful employers in a competitive industry that hire equally across the board among all spectrums. Prove to me with data that productivity is equal among genders with employer data. Examine the data and testimonials from successful employers explaining why they hire who they hire to maintain their competitive advantage.
While you are at it, show the employer testimonials from the failed ventures who hired the wrong people. Let's see the real discrepancies, not some mystical ether that is magically attributed to genitalia.
Created:
Posted in:
One of them used randomized data samples from 3,000 people.
How about some data from 3000 employers. You know, the people that go bankrupt if they don't compensate for Dunning-Kruger.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@blamonkey
Alright then. What is it attributed to?
Probably not having a penis lol. Why is that even remotely a viable conclusion?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@blamonkey
Not at all when your 1st source has the word "might" in it.
The second source has the word "may" in the 1st thesis statement.
The third source's thesis statement was a confirmation bias statement.
The fourth source throws the cost to the employer for retaining a worker into the ether, although they acknowledge the "mystical unexplained 1/3" exists...while admitting 2/3 can definitely be attributed to production incompetency. The other 1/3 apparently has to be assumed from the "process of elimination (lol)" to be attributed to whether or not the worker has a penis, because the study refuses to look at other factors.
I noticed how nearly all of these studies rely heavily on worker testimonials and very little on employer testimonials. I already pointed out nearly every worker is subject to some form of Dunning-Kruger where a worker artificially overinflates their self-worth. That is a known psychological trait of all humans, which is why a competent researcher should be relying much more on employer testimonials and little to none of the worker testimonials to get accurate actual data on productivity.
Try a source with actual conclusive data, preferably one weighted with job creator data. I'd love to see the study that rewrites how millions of businesses operate in a free market.
Pretty sure I can expect more outliers and less of the general overall case data. Outliers will always produce biases.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@blamonkey
Unless you suggest that absolutely no female candidate can equal a male in terms of delivering output, your argument doesn't really hold water.
And your argument holds no water assuming the opposite is true. That all females are equal to men with no data to back that up.
Is there a chance that a person shooting a gun at an officer will all of a sudden comply to authority? Sure. Is the police officer going to take that risk? Maybe.
Employers don't just simply hire people on the basis of interviews. They also have to look at who they, their successful competitors, and failed competitors hired and ultimately fired.
And most importantly, they have to take a very long look at who their successful competitors are keeping on as valued employees.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ILikePie5
They tried to stall this as long as possible after Mueller was forced to publicly announce "no collusion"
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ILikePie5
What's really sad is Flynn didn't even like Trump, but the FBI needed a sacrificial example to feed the swamp narrative with the mockingbird MSM.
Flynn never saw it coming.
He got the "6 ways from Sunday" treatment.
Created:
Posted in:
Created:
-->
@ILikePie5
I have to wear a bandana to shop lol.
Created:
-->
@ILikePie5
You mean that Texas mother?
Created:
-->
@ILikePie5
There are a slew of stories out this week exposing totalitarian governments and activist judges abusing their power and locking up mothers and fathers.
Created:
Posted in:
Regardless of actual output, it was shown that perceptions about productivity of certain genders play into hiring decisions when qualifications are equal.
This is why every one of your analysis are functionally useless.
Disregarding actual output means you can show no functional discrepancy. How can you say there is a bias against something if the outputs were NEVER proven to be the same? It would be like claiming police were biased at people shooting guns at them and then claiming some sort of discrepancy over the norm or some social injustice. Ridiculous.
Assumptions are the bane of analysis.
In a competitive free market, employers that choose affirmative action employees over actual output are rewarded with bankruptcies.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@blamonkey
Again, cost is not the only factor in employment.
You mean like being born with a penis. I get it.
pervasive stereotypes affect employer decisions in pay.
Not on any meaningful level. Employers care about money, not genitalia or other social stereotypes, otherwise, robots wouldn't be replacing people.
The stigma against robots is far greater than any person male, female, or homeless. Yet they actually are worth hiring over some affirmative action employee recommended by the latest "Harvard study"
After the civil war, business owners rushed to employ the recently freed slaves, so much so that the south had to enact Jim Crow laws to make black employment illegal in many industries.
Those businesses employing blacks and catering to black customers didn't give a flying fuck about your latest social stereotype. They just wanted to make money.
Businesses that follow the latest "Harvard study" guidelines on who to hire don't do nearly as well as the ones that simply hire the best for the job. Human ingenuity and business acumen in a competitive world always trumps the latest social fad on who is "socially hot" to employ. Every time.
Also, your Harvard study is functionally useless. There's no mention at all between perceived job output and actual job output. It only focused on the perceived job output with no actual output to compare to. Workers are always susceptible to the Dunning-Kruger effect since they are not the ones that actually have to pay for the lights and the small business loan monthly payments. Those kinds of one-sided studies are perfect for confirmation biased props, but little else.
Created:
-->
@Dr.Franklin
Whitmer is a disaster, Michigan will go red because of this.
I don't believe she will get VP slot either.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@blamonkey
Your personal observations about the proficiency of female workers is noted, but in the event that one of those colleagues was just as competent to you, all else being equal, she would not be paid as much, and performance reviews would rate her as less competent. This is not to suggest that being male is an automatic guarantee of success, but it does contribute to employment and pay.
I think you might have hastily glossed over my point about the thousands of WOMEN only applying for my job and next to zero MEN applying for my job.
If you actually believe women on average work for less than I do, then there is no logical reason for me to feel in any way, shape, or form secure in my job.
My industry is near 95% women only. Why do you think my job is so secure? You tell me. Is it really because of my penis?
Nah, don't answer with another canned confirmation biased response.
The reason why I feel secure is because there is no actual competition. I don't have to compete with men, who actually do more work for less pay, regardless of what your biased studies state.
I am like that figurative transgendered athlete lapping the girls on the field. The women are just not nearly as hard to outpace as it was when I had to compete with men for a job. That's the cold hard reality outside of the confirmation bias narrative. As a smart, well educated and thoroughly lazy man, I have found the path of least resistance, and it is most definitely amongst the ranks of incompetent female labor.
Created:
Posted in:
Unlike the homeless and women, there does exist a group that actually is willing to work for less pay with the exact same job output.
Illegal linvader labor.
Unlike women and the homeless, there are plenty of businesses that will hire ONLY illegal labor exclusively, and no one else because of that fact.
Nowhere in America will you see competitive businesses hire only women or only homeless where men could have the exact same job output (or better) for the same pay.
I currently work as a man in a vastly dominated female industry. My job is insanely easy and secure because very few men compete for my job, as a result, I get paid very well if only to keep me from leaving. If the women were willing to do what I do, for less pay, you can bet immediately, from a gigantic pool of waiting women, I would be replaced. Yet the opposite is actually the case. Why do you think that is? Do you really think my value as a token male in that industry is that high? That they just keep me employed there and "overpay me" because I have testicles instead of ovaries? If it really was the case that women produce more for less pay, why am I comfortable in a job overwhelmingly dominated by women? I verily outperform most of the women, and that is the reason, not because I was born with a penis. Were it not true, my employer would easily have 100% females employed instead of 93% considering the insanely low amount of males capable of performing my job duties competently.
Again, I wake up every day as a man with full job security, knowing full well that the claim "women produce more for less pay" is an absolute bullshit claim in my industry.
None of my clients request my services because I have a penis. It's because I outperform the hundreds of women with job applications for my spot. I've actually found most women to be much less competent and less ambitious. Their incompetence is the reason for my complacency, and believe me, I am a very lazy person.
The same claim about women also applies to the homeless. While there are many problems to address with the homeless, claiming the homeless have untapped work value that job creators simply refuse to capitalize on for whatever reason you might concoct is bonkers considering how many job creators will accept illegal labor (especially homeless illegal labor) in a heartbeat if the government will let them get away with it.
Created:
I hear the sound of sheep. baaa baaa.
Corporate fake news anchors are paid very well to ring that bell.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@blamonkey
private industries do not pay for the full worth of their workforce
This is wrong.
For the exact same reasons studies falsely claimed women were willing to work for less pay with the exact same job output as men.
If it was true, companies would hire only women, or the homeless.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@blamonkey
I'm not taking any issue with what you wrote actually, it was while reading your 1st source, the pedantic academic paper glorifying productivity for productivity's sake by assuming in the thesis all productivity, regardless of the product, is assigned a similar wage. "Increases in productivity have long been associated with increases in compensation for employees." that kind of statement is useless without the context of what is being produced. A coal miner will be compensated much less per unit produced than a person working at a California energy plant where blackouts are common. I didn't really mean to direct it at you.
The academic paper constantly brings up the term deflator without clarifying what it is. They don't even make a casual pass at explaining the why of the lack of demand for products among the studied industries in the paper.
It just reminds me of the type of misleading and flawed economic academic papers used to justify the 77 cent "wage gap"
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@blamonkey
Lol, that post was a whole lot of pedantic nothing. Productivity is a completely useless economic statistic without clarification of what is being produced.
I can be very productive at mashing down the stuffing in my chair as I sit in it for 12 hours a day, producing mashed chair stuffing. Of what economic value is that to anyone or any consumer?
Productivity is a statistic the government would use to justify tax increases in lieu of a statistic that shows any actual real-world value. Total fluff.
Why should I care if the productivity of, say, buggy whip makers declines? It matters not to most of the world.
What about if the productivity of the workers at medicine companies that produce the medicine I have to take daily to stay alive drops? That's bad for me and everyone else in the world that needs it.
Productivity is NOT a static value without clarification. Useless fluff out of context.
In some contexts, productivity itself is a very bad thing. Take the productivity of Chinese recycling plants knowing that China dumps the waste excess into the Ocean.
A decrease in the productivity of those workers is a great thing for the world (and the sea animals).
Cool miner productivity is another good example.
Created:
-->
@TheDredPriateRoberts
Fake news kills daily. This is why you shouldn't watch it.
Created: