Log in or sign up to comment
2527 Comments
Edited by EnduranceFun

I appreciate the effort of you guys trying to argue the zealots, but it's pointless. You can bring up well-researched evidence, concede many points and respect their most absurd ideas as truth, they will never compromise on their loony ideology. Even here where it's clearly in question whether this statue was truly sexist or not [unless males are by birthright unable to decide what is or isn't sexist] these couple clowns come in and completely destroy any previous conversation, amiable or otherwise. Just best to ignore and move on with your lives.

However, I do think this comment section got out-of-hand. I don't know what the complaints even were, but it's boiling down to just an aggravation with these sorts of articles. All I can recommend is that Patrick tries to balance his articles better, at least attempt to find differing opinions [no, this does not mean finding sexists for the 'against,' fuck off] and if he can try to avoid making a feminist / sexist article unless it's relevant? I doubt he'd agree to that and I don't think he'll change his approach much, to be fair this article is not badly-written or overly-opinionated from the author's point of view, the fact it's quite biased and arguably needless is a far harder point to argue to Patrick than before, when it was his spelling, grammar, syntax, etcetera in question. So this most likely isn't going to get resolved.

Edited by Judakel

@crcruz3 said:

@Judakel said:

@crcruz3 said:

@Judakel said:

@crcruz3 said:

@Judakel said:

@crcruz3 said:

You said: "While on the job, women either do as much work as men or are simply too unproductive to be viable employees." and you are ignoring the 3rd option, they are less productive than men and receiving less money for it. That's Block's whole argument.

Are you an economist yourself? In that case, which school of economics is your preferred one?

I did not ignore his argument. I explained why he was simply wrong. You even quoted the section where I explained why he was wrong. There is literally no incentive for an employer to continue paying someone (even if it is less money) for lesser work. His third option is a fiction and you've taken my dismissal of it as simply "ignoring it". When an employer hires someone, they factor in the most they are willing to pay someone for the desired work into their budget. They don't reign it in if the work is shoddy since they get nothing out of it. It would be better in the long run to simply hire someone else who won't do shoddy work. They would save more money that way. Not a single employer will look at an under-performing employee and say "we will keep him on, but pay him less". Nor do they hire someone on the expectation that they will "work less, but at least we can pay them less". The gap comes about well after someone has been hired, and it can simply not come about due to poor performance. Poor performers get fired. Block didn't even bother to prove his point. He just threw together a blatantly illogical explanation that fits with his Darwinian, free-market bullshit. I can see how, if you believe in the free market, you might be tempted to apply it to microeconomics in the way he has. Unfortunately, that nonsense is only passable in macroeconomics, and even there people have caught on.

It should be fairly obvious where I land as far as schools of economics are concerned.

I am an employer myself and the only thing that is obvious to me is that you are talking about a theoretical employer that doesn't exist. And again you are calling Block darwinian and bullshitter, ad hominem all over.

All human beings are different, equal work is nonsense. I have 250 employees and they are not equally productive. Even those performing the same tasks.

I'm going to play some games now, it's 9:46 pm here in Argentina. 'Night.

An ad hominem attack is when someone attacks the person instead of the argument. I can attack the person as much as I like, as long as I attack the argument too. This employer does exist, because he is a rational actor in the field of economics. Something most employers are. If your employees are not roughly equal in their productivity while working the same number of hours and having the same duties, then I am not sure why you have kept them on. You do realize that no one expects exactly the same amount of productivity, but as far as it is measurable, all individuals performing the same function should be equally productive in your Darwinian wonderland.

If they were equally productive I would pay them the same as in your: equal work, equal pay. As they are not, I pay them proportionally to the subjective, not easily measurable, productivity.

Calling Block names is foolish and coward as he is not here to defend himself. Calling me names is just rude and I don't appreciate it.

Then you are an unethical employer, for you cannot measure their "lesser productivity" in anything more than subjective ways, yet see it fit to nonetheless quantify this unmeasurable productivity in their paychecks. The very nature of what you're doing is so incredibly chilling, because the productivity of these employees may one day rise to meet that of the others, but since you have nothing but your own subjective opinion as to their levels of productivity, you may continue to pay them as if they are doing poor work.

Do you know, my dear entrepreneur, why most businesses try to avoid such methods? It isn't ethics, surely. Most businesses under a capitalist system are not concerned with ethics. Not, it is for the following reasons: One, it can be taxing to keep an eye on the productivity of every employee so that your own subjective, half-assed assessment can determine whether they will get a raise or not, and two, there is very little motivation for improvement were these comparatively poorly paid employees to find out that they are seen as poor workers deserving of fewer wages.

By the way, I love the fact that, as far as I can tell, you only looked at your business and decided to declare a more rational approach as only existing in theory. Someone should tell most mid-large size business owners that.

I am sorry you're such a diehard Austrian fanatic that you think it is foolish to mock Block. Believe me, Block has heard everything I've mentioned here many times over from other sources. He has not defended himself particularly well when confronted.

You assume a lot of things.

Nobody lives in a vacuum, I know a whole bunch of entrepreneurs and some of them are big and we talk about these kind of stuff a lot.

I don't determine productivity of all my employees by myself. I don't even know some of them, they work in different provinces (states for the US). Other people do that for me.

Measuring productivity is hard and you seem to ignore it. I'm both a Mechanical and an Electrical Engineer and I have studied Taylor, Fayol and others in subjects of productivity. In a factory is easy to measure the output of some people, however it's very hard to measure the productivity of a secretary, a lawyer and even an accountant.

Diehard Austrian fanatic? Unethical? Half-assed assessments?

As I said, you assume too much.

By the way, do you and your rich friends realize Walter Block also thinks the income disparity between blacks and whites is due to blacks being lazy? I wouldn't put it past what seems like a cadre of exploiting compadres, but I am just wondering.

Edited by Archaen

@Judakel said:

@Archaen said:

Wow. I apologize everyone for wasting my time trying to enlighten this person on the facts of income and sex. I hope someone else has found my explanations and the articles I've posted enlightening. This one is a lost cause who wants everyone else in society to pay women for the hours, weeks, months and years that they decide of their own free will not to work. Good luck, you bright, shining star.

You didn't post any facts on income and sex. You posted opinions backed by data that, when adjusted in order to even out the hours, still showed an income disparity.

Not. True. The articles I posted are adjusting the numbers included in your link for the problems inherent to them. One of many is that they are using yearly earnings per person ("median pay") for "full time work", which does not take into account, in any way, the fact that men work several more hours per week than women (8.14 hours per day for men and 7.75 hours per day for women - U.S. Department of Labor Statistics). They are using some of the numbers from the U.S. Bureau of Labor and Statistics without using ALL of the numbers from their report, which clearly shows that median pay does not include any adjustment for the amount of time worked by each sex. Just look at their methodology:

"Methodology

Difference in Annual Pay: To compare male and female pay on a level playing field, we found the median pay for all men in a given job, as well as breakdowns of important compensable factors such as years of experience, location, education level, etc. Then, using PayScale's proprietary MarketMatch™ Algorithm, we determined what the female median pay would be using the exact same blend of compensable factors as our control male group.

What we created was an apples-to-apples comparison of what men and women make, all other factors held equal, according to actual market data. For example, the male software developer median, annual salary is $65,700, which is 4 percent more than the median female value of $63,300."

There is is again: "Median Pay". Anyone that does a comparison of "Median Pay" is ignoring critical data and their work is inherently incorrect. You are operating on a mathematical fallacy. They say they're showing like for like, but are in fact not doing so, and it's plain to see if you actually look at the numbers. Their numbers also do not take into account many other factors which the 3 articles I linked all cover in detail. There's nothing worse than someone who thinks they know statistics but actually don't. They're impossible to have a discussion with. Please be more careful in the future with whom you believe to be an authority. These people are clearly not.

Edited by Judakel

@Archaen said:

@Judakel said:

@Archaen said:

Wow. I apologize everyone for wasting my time trying to enlighten this person on the facts of income and sex. I hope someone else has found my explanations and the articles I've posted enlightening. This one is a lost cause who wants everyone else in society to pay women for the hours, weeks, months and years that they decide of their own free will not to work. Good luck, you bright, shining star.

You didn't post any facts on income and sex. You posted opinions backed by data that, when adjusted in order to even out the hours, still showed an income disparity.

Not. True. The articles I posted are adjusting the numbers included in your link for the problems inherent to them, which, among many, is that they are using yearly earnings per person ("median pay") for "full time work", which does not take into account, in any way, the fact that men work several more hours per week than women (8.14 hours per day for men and 7.75 hours per day for women). Just look at their methodology:

"Methodology

Difference in Annual Pay: To compare male and female pay on a level playing field, we found the median pay for all men in a given job, as well as breakdowns of important compensable factors such as years of experience, location, education level, etc. Then, using PayScale's proprietary MarketMatch™ Algorithm, we determined what the female median pay would be using the exact same blend of compensable factors as our control male group.

What we created was an apples-to-apples comparison of what men and women make, all other factors held equal, according to actual market data. For example, the male software developer median, annual salary is $65,700, which is 4 percent more than the median female value of $63,300."

There is is again: "Median Pay". Anyone that does a comparison of "Median Pay" is ignoring critical data and their work is inherently incorrect. You are operating on a mathematical fallacy. They say they're showing like for like, but are in fact not doing so, and it's plain to see if you actually look at the numbers. Their numbers also do not take into account many other factors which the 3 articles I linked all cover in detail. There's nothing worse than someone who thinks they know statistics but actually don't. They're impossible to have a discussion with. Please be more careful in the future with whom you believe to be an authority. These people are clearly not.

I have a PhD in Physics from UC Berkeley. I know statistics, son. Not only was it required to obtain my degree, but it is used extensively in my research.

Let me explain something to you: Median is more useful when measuring salaries because the data is not evenly distributed by default. By utilizing the median, you avoid the results being skewed by outliers.

What their mathematical model did was adjust the time spent working to equal amounts for all individuals, adjust the salary accordingly, and then look at results side-by-side. In other words, they got rid of the differences which you utilized to argue that women do not get paid the same because they do not put in the same amount of work. In doing so they revealed that a gap persists even when one controls for these factors. They destroyed your point.

Do you understand this?

Posted by Archaen

@Judakel said:

@Archaen said:

@Judakel said:

@Archaen said:

Wow. I apologize everyone for wasting my time trying to enlighten this person on the facts of income and sex. I hope someone else has found my explanations and the articles I've posted enlightening. This one is a lost cause who wants everyone else in society to pay women for the hours, weeks, months and years that they decide of their own free will not to work. Good luck, you bright, shining star.

You didn't post any facts on income and sex. You posted opinions backed by data that, when adjusted in order to even out the hours, still showed an income disparity.

Not. True. The articles I posted are adjusting the numbers included in your link for the problems inherent to them, which, among many, is that they are using yearly earnings per person ("median pay") for "full time work", which does not take into account, in any way, the fact that men work several more hours per week than women (8.14 hours per day for men and 7.75 hours per day for women). Just look at their methodology:

"Methodology

Difference in Annual Pay: To compare male and female pay on a level playing field, we found the median pay for all men in a given job, as well as breakdowns of important compensable factors such as years of experience, location, education level, etc. Then, using PayScale's proprietary MarketMatch™ Algorithm, we determined what the female median pay would be using the exact same blend of compensable factors as our control male group.

What we created was an apples-to-apples comparison of what men and women make, all other factors held equal, according to actual market data. For example, the male software developer median, annual salary is $65,700, which is 4 percent more than the median female value of $63,300."

There is is again: "Median Pay". Anyone that does a comparison of "Median Pay" is ignoring critical data and their work is inherently incorrect. You are operating on a mathematical fallacy. They say they're showing like for like, but are in fact not doing so, and it's plain to see if you actually look at the numbers. Their numbers also do not take into account many other factors which the 3 articles I linked all cover in detail. There's nothing worse than someone who thinks they know statistics but actually don't. They're impossible to have a discussion with. Please be more careful in the future with whom you believe to be an authority. These people are clearly not.

I have a PhD in Physics from UC Berkeley. I know statistics, son. Not only was it required to obtain my degree, but it is used extensively in my research.

Let me explain something to you: Median is more useful when measuring salaries because the data is not evenly distributed by default. By utilizing the median, you avoid the results being skewed by outliers.

What their mathematical model did was adjust the time spent working to equal amounts for all individuals, adjust the salary accordingly, and then look at results side-by-side. In other words, they got rid of the differences which you utilized to argue that women do not get paid the same because they do not put in the same amount of work. In doing so they revealed that a gap persists even when one controls for these factors. They destroyed your point.

Do you understand this?

They did not do what you think they did. Is that simple enough for you? They don't even say ANYWHERE that they did what you say they did. Everyone else that have done what you think these people have have produced significantly different numbers. Go ahead and run the statistics yourself. Hopefully you'll manage to get the right result, unlike these jokers.

Posted by Judakel

@Archaen said:

@Judakel said:

@Archaen said:

@Judakel said:

@Archaen said:

Wow. I apologize everyone for wasting my time trying to enlighten this person on the facts of income and sex. I hope someone else has found my explanations and the articles I've posted enlightening. This one is a lost cause who wants everyone else in society to pay women for the hours, weeks, months and years that they decide of their own free will not to work. Good luck, you bright, shining star.

You didn't post any facts on income and sex. You posted opinions backed by data that, when adjusted in order to even out the hours, still showed an income disparity.

Not. True. The articles I posted are adjusting the numbers included in your link for the problems inherent to them, which, among many, is that they are using yearly earnings per person ("median pay") for "full time work", which does not take into account, in any way, the fact that men work several more hours per week than women (8.14 hours per day for men and 7.75 hours per day for women). Just look at their methodology:

"Methodology

Difference in Annual Pay: To compare male and female pay on a level playing field, we found the median pay for all men in a given job, as well as breakdowns of important compensable factors such as years of experience, location, education level, etc. Then, using PayScale's proprietary MarketMatch™ Algorithm, we determined what the female median pay would be using the exact same blend of compensable factors as our control male group.

What we created was an apples-to-apples comparison of what men and women make, all other factors held equal, according to actual market data. For example, the male software developer median, annual salary is $65,700, which is 4 percent more than the median female value of $63,300."

There is is again: "Median Pay". Anyone that does a comparison of "Median Pay" is ignoring critical data and their work is inherently incorrect. You are operating on a mathematical fallacy. They say they're showing like for like, but are in fact not doing so, and it's plain to see if you actually look at the numbers. Their numbers also do not take into account many other factors which the 3 articles I linked all cover in detail. There's nothing worse than someone who thinks they know statistics but actually don't. They're impossible to have a discussion with. Please be more careful in the future with whom you believe to be an authority. These people are clearly not.

I have a PhD in Physics from UC Berkeley. I know statistics, son. Not only was it required to obtain my degree, but it is used extensively in my research.

Let me explain something to you: Median is more useful when measuring salaries because the data is not evenly distributed by default. By utilizing the median, you avoid the results being skewed by outliers.

What their mathematical model did was adjust the time spent working to equal amounts for all individuals, adjust the salary accordingly, and then look at results side-by-side. In other words, they got rid of the differences which you utilized to argue that women do not get paid the same because they do not put in the same amount of work. In doing so they revealed that a gap persists even when one controls for these factors. They destroyed your point.

Do you understand this?

They did not do what you think they did. Is that simple enough for you? They don't even say ANYWHERE that they did what you say they did. Everyone else that have done what you think these people have have produced significantly different numbers. Go ahead and run the statistics yourself. Hopefully you'll manage to get the right result, unlike these jokers.

"To compare male and female pay on a level playing field, we found the median pay for all men in a given job, as well as breakdowns of important compensable factors such as years of experience, location, education level, etc. Then, using PayScale's proprietary MarketMatch™ Algorithm, we determined what the female median pay would be using the exact same blend of compensable factors as our control male group."

Posted by Archaen

@Judakel: @Judakel said:

@Archaen said:

They did not do what you think they did. Is that simple enough for you? They don't even say ANYWHERE that they did what you say they did. Everyone else that have done what you think these people have have produced significantly different numbers. Go ahead and run the statistics yourself. Hopefully you'll manage to get the right result, unlike these jokers.

"To compare male and female pay on a level playing field, we found the median pay for all men in a given job, as well as breakdowns of important compensable factors such as years of experience, location, education level, etc. Then, using PayScale's proprietary MarketMatch™ Algorithm, we determined what the female median pay would be using the exact same blend of compensable factors as our control male group."

Please highlight for me in that paragraph where it says they considered hours worked per day or per week. Just highlight it real quick.

Edited by Judakel

@Archaen said:

@Judakel: @Judakel said:

@Archaen said:

They did not do what you think they did. Is that simple enough for you? They don't even say ANYWHERE that they did what you say they did. Everyone else that have done what you think these people have have produced significantly different numbers. Go ahead and run the statistics yourself. Hopefully you'll manage to get the right result, unlike these jokers.

"To compare male and female pay on a level playing field, we found the median pay for all men in a given job, as well as breakdowns of important compensable factors such as years of experience, location, education level, etc. Then, using PayScale's proprietary MarketMatch™ Algorithm, we determined what the female median pay would be using the exact same blend of compensable factors as our control male group."

Please highlight for me in that paragraph where it says they considered hours worked per day or per week. Just highlight it real quick.

"To compare male and female pay on a level playing field, we found the median pay for all men in a given job, as well as breakdowns of important compensable factors such as years of experience, location, education level, etc. Then, using PayScale's proprietary MarketMatch™ Algorithm, we determined what the female median pay would be using the exact same blend of compensable factors as our control male group."

In other words, all factors that affected salary were exactly the same.

Posted by Archaen

@Judakel said:

@Archaen said:

@Judakel: @Judakel said:

@Archaen said:

They did not do what you think they did. Is that simple enough for you? They don't even say ANYWHERE that they did what you say they did. Everyone else that have done what you think these people have have produced significantly different numbers. Go ahead and run the statistics yourself. Hopefully you'll manage to get the right result, unlike these jokers.

"To compare male and female pay on a level playing field, we found the median pay for all men in a given job, as well as breakdowns of important compensable factors such as years of experience, location, education level, etc. Then, using PayScale's proprietary MarketMatch™ Algorithm, we determined what the female median pay would be using the exact same blend of compensable factors as our control male group."

Please highlight for me in that paragraph where it says they considered hours worked per day or per week. Just highlight it real quick.

"To compare male and female pay on a level playing field, we found the median pay for all men in a given job, as well as breakdowns of important compensable factors such as years of experience, location, education level, etc. Then, using PayScale's proprietary MarketMatch™ Algorithm, we determined what the female median pay would be using the exact same blend of compensable factors as our control male group."

In other words, all factors which affected salary were exactly the same.

Bummer. Because they're not. Nice try, though. If you're good at statistics like you say you are just go ahead and do the work yourself and you'll see that these guys messed up. Not a good source.

Posted by Judakel

@Archaen said:

@Judakel said:

@Archaen said:

@Judakel: @Judakel said:

@Archaen said:

They did not do what you think they did. Is that simple enough for you? They don't even say ANYWHERE that they did what you say they did. Everyone else that have done what you think these people have have produced significantly different numbers. Go ahead and run the statistics yourself. Hopefully you'll manage to get the right result, unlike these jokers.

"To compare male and female pay on a level playing field, we found the median pay for all men in a given job, as well as breakdowns of important compensable factors such as years of experience, location, education level, etc. Then, using PayScale's proprietary MarketMatch™ Algorithm, we determined what the female median pay would be using the exact same blend of compensable factors as our control male group."

Please highlight for me in that paragraph where it says they considered hours worked per day or per week. Just highlight it real quick.

"To compare male and female pay on a level playing field, we found the median pay for all men in a given job, as well as breakdowns of important compensable factors such as years of experience, location, education level, etc. Then, using PayScale's proprietary MarketMatch™ Algorithm, we determined what the female median pay would be using the exact same blend of compensable factors as our control male group."

In other words, all factors which affected salary were exactly the same.

Bummer. Because they're not. Nice try, though. If you're good at statistics like you say you are just go ahead and do the work yourself and you'll see that these guys messed up. Not a good source.

I've done the work myself prior to this discussion. They did not mess up.

If you have a different result, please show us your work.

Edited by Archaen

@Judakel said:

@Archaen said:

@Judakel said:

@Archaen said:

@Judakel: @Judakel said:

@Archaen said:

They did not do what you think they did. Is that simple enough for you? They don't even say ANYWHERE that they did what you say they did. Everyone else that have done what you think these people have have produced significantly different numbers. Go ahead and run the statistics yourself. Hopefully you'll manage to get the right result, unlike these jokers.

"To compare male and female pay on a level playing field, we found the median pay for all men in a given job, as well as breakdowns of important compensable factors such as years of experience, location, education level, etc. Then, using PayScale's proprietary MarketMatch™ Algorithm, we determined what the female median pay would be using the exact same blend of compensable factors as our control male group."

Please highlight for me in that paragraph where it says they considered hours worked per day or per week. Just highlight it real quick.

"To compare male and female pay on a level playing field, we found the median pay for all men in a given job, as well as breakdowns of important compensable factors such as years of experience, location, education level, etc. Then, using PayScale's proprietary MarketMatch™ Algorithm, we determined what the female median pay would be using the exact same blend of compensable factors as our control male group."

In other words, all factors which affected salary were exactly the same.

Bummer. Because they're not. Nice try, though. If you're good at statistics like you say you are just go ahead and do the work yourself and you'll see that these guys messed up. Not a good source.

I've done the work myself prior to this discussion. They did not mess up.

If you have a different result, please show us your work.

Enjoy the U.S. Department of Labor and Statistics report on the issue; you know, the one everyone is basing their work off of. http://www.consad.com/content/reports/Gender%20Wage%20Gap%20Final%20Report.pdf

Go ahead and tell me they messed up and then we get to throw out every article you or I have posted. lol.

Posted by confideration

There are many comments on this article.

Posted by Judakel

@Archaen said:

@Judakel said:

@Archaen said:

@Judakel said:

@Archaen said:

@Judakel: @Judakel said:

@Archaen said:

They did not do what you think they did. Is that simple enough for you? They don't even say ANYWHERE that they did what you say they did. Everyone else that have done what you think these people have have produced significantly different numbers. Go ahead and run the statistics yourself. Hopefully you'll manage to get the right result, unlike these jokers.

"To compare male and female pay on a level playing field, we found the median pay for all men in a given job, as well as breakdowns of important compensable factors such as years of experience, location, education level, etc. Then, using PayScale's proprietary MarketMatch™ Algorithm, we determined what the female median pay would be using the exact same blend of compensable factors as our control male group."

Please highlight for me in that paragraph where it says they considered hours worked per day or per week. Just highlight it real quick.

"To compare male and female pay on a level playing field, we found the median pay for all men in a given job, as well as breakdowns of important compensable factors such as years of experience, location, education level, etc. Then, using PayScale's proprietary MarketMatch™ Algorithm, we determined what the female median pay would be using the exact same blend of compensable factors as our control male group."

In other words, all factors which affected salary were exactly the same.

Bummer. Because they're not. Nice try, though. If you're good at statistics like you say you are just go ahead and do the work yourself and you'll see that these guys messed up. Not a good source.

I've done the work myself prior to this discussion. They did not mess up.

If you have a different result, please show us your work.

Enjoy the U.S. Department of Labor and Statistics report on the issue, you know, the one everyone is basing their work off of. http://www.consad.com/content/reports/Gender%20Wage%20Gap%20Final%20Report.pdf

Go ahead and tell me they messed up and then we get to throw out every article you or I have posted. lol.

You seem to be rather obtuse. This is essentially the raw data being examined, without being adjusted for compensable factors such as time worked. This data might show that time worked is a factor. However, once this time is adjusted and time worked is no longer a factor, as with the link I posted and my own calculations, we find that a gap persists. You claim that no gap should persist once time is adjusted to be equal. Please show your work.

Edited by Archaen

@Judakel: Lol. Reading comprehension for the FAIL.

P.S. (God, I can't believe someone got me to actually say that). I'm done here. You, sir, cannot manage to accurately read the introduction of the report.

For those that don't want to read a document from a government think tank:

"Although additional research in this area is clearly needed, this study leads to the unambiguous conclusion that the differences in the compensation of men and women are the result of a multitude of factors and that the raw wage gap should not be used as the basis to justify corrective action. Indeed, there may be nothing to correct. The differences in raw wages may be almost entirely the result of the individual choices being made by both male and female workers."

Posted by Judakel

@Archaen said:

@Judakel: Lol. Reading comprehension for the FAIL.

P.S. (God, I can't believe someone got me to actually say that)

Where is the reading comprehension "fail"?

I think you essentially understand that you can't do the work that is being asked of you despite your bold declarations that there is no discrimination and time (along with other compensable factors) is the reason why there is wage gap.

Posted by Archaen

@Judakel said:

@Archaen said:

@Judakel: Lol. Reading comprehension for the FAIL.

P.S. (God, I can't believe someone got me to actually say that)

Where is the reading comprehension "fail"?

I think you essentially understand that you can't do the work that is being asked of you despite your bold declarations that there is no discrimination and time (along with other compensable factors) is the reason why there is wage gap.

Since I added it in an edit, here is the end of the introduction, which you clearly failed to either read or understand:

"Although additional research in this area is clearly needed, this study leads to the unambiguous conclusion that the differences in the compensation of men and women are the result of a multitude of factors and that the raw wage gap should not be used as the basis to justify corrective action. Indeed, there may be nothing to correct. The differences in raw wages may be almost entirely the result of the individual choices being made by both male and female workers."

Edited by Judakel

@Archaen said:

@Judakel: Lol. Reading comprehension for the FAIL.

P.S. (God, I can't believe someone got me to actually say that). I'm done here. You, sir, cannot manage to accurately read the introduction of the report.

For those that don't want to read a document from a government think tank:

"Although additional research in this area is clearly needed, this study leads to the unambiguous conclusion that the differences in the compensation of men and women are the result of a multitude of factors and that the raw wage gap should not be used as the basis to justify corrective action. Indeed, there may be nothing to correct. The differences in raw wages may be almost entirely the result of the individual choices being made by both male and female workers."

Indeed. I do not have a problem with this statement. I think you're not understanding me. We both agree that the "choice" to work differing amounts of hours clearly contributes to the wage gap. However, it is when we adjust for these "choices" that we see even without these "choices", women will still be paid less than men. Do not ignore "almost entirely" in that statement.

It seems to me the only person who has poor reading comprehension here is you. That, and you apparently stink at stats.

Posted by Judakel

@Archaen said:

@Judakel said:

@Archaen said:

@Judakel: Lol. Reading comprehension for the FAIL.

P.S. (God, I can't believe someone got me to actually say that)

Where is the reading comprehension "fail"?

I think you essentially understand that you can't do the work that is being asked of you despite your bold declarations that there is no discrimination and time (along with other compensable factors) is the reason why there is wage gap.

Since I added it in an edit, here is the end of the introduction, which you clearly failed to either read or understand:

"Although additional research in this area is clearly needed, this study leads to the unambiguous conclusion that the differences in the compensation of men and women are the result of a multitude of factors and that the raw wage gap should not be used as the basis to justify corrective action. Indeed, there may be nothing to correct. The differences in raw wages may be almost entirely the result of the individual choices being made by both male and female workers."

You should read my previous post, understand it, and then show your work.

Posted by Archaen

@Judakel :

You're doing it wrong.

@People who can read: Enjoy the document.

Posted by JoshyLee

Patrick is the Nancy Grace of Giantbomb. This sensationalist shit has to stop.

Posted by Judakel

@Archaen said:

@Judakel :

You're doing it wrong.

@People who can read: Enjoy the document.

I sincerely believe that your understanding of this document goes about as far as the introduction. That you read it, due to your poor critical thinking skills missed the words "may", "almost entirely", and the very weak "should not", due to your lack of knowledge on the subject of statistics went no further, and then decided to call it a day. Even the authors of this report agree that, when adjusting for compensable factors, a wage gap remains. If a gap persists after adjusting for all compensable factors, then it must be due to some form of discrimination. They just don't think it is large enough to be concerned about ("should not"), a normative analysis. You can't even tell positive analysis from normative analysis in that introduction.

This is embarrassing for you, but at least you've been outed as the wannabe you always were.

Edited by Archaen

@Judakel said:

@Archaen said:

@Judakel :

You're doing it wrong.

@People who can read: Enjoy the document.

I sincerely believe that your understanding of this document goes about as far as the introduction. That you read it, due to your poor critical thinking skills missed the words "may", "almost entirely", and the very weak "should not", due to your lack of knowledge on the subject of statistics went no further, and then decided to call it a day. Even the authors of this report agree that, when adjusting for compensable factors, a wage gap remains. If a gap persists after adjusting for all compensable factors, then it must be due to some form of discrimination. They just don't think it is large enough to be concerned about ("should not"), a normative analysis. You can't even tell positive analysis from normative analysis in that introduction.

This is embarrassing for you, but at least you've been outed as the wannabe you always were.

Lol. That is not what the document says. It specifically says later that it does not seem to be from discrimination. You really project yourself into everything, don't you?

Edit: I'm editing this now to let you know that I am closing this tab now. If you can't read a simple PDF correctly I can't help you any further. I fear I've wasted too much time as it is. EnduranceFun was right. I thought I'd give a try.

Edited by Judakel

@Archaen said:

@Judakel said:

@Archaen said:

@Judakel :

You're doing it wrong.

@People who can read: Enjoy the document.

I sincerely believe that your understanding of this document goes about as far as the introduction. That you read it, due to your poor critical thinking skills missed the words "may", "almost entirely", and the very weak "should not", due to your lack of knowledge on the subject of statistics went no further, and then decided to call it a day. Even the authors of this report agree that, when adjusting for compensable factors, a wage gap remains. If a gap persists after adjusting for all compensable factors, then it must be due to some form of discrimination. They just don't think it is large enough to be concerned about ("should not"), a normative analysis. You can't even tell positive analysis from normative analysis in that introduction.

This is embarrassing for you, but at least you've been outed as the wannabe you always were.

Lol. That is not what the document says. It specifically says later that it does not seem to be from discrimination. You really project yourself into everything, don't you?

Edit: I'm editing this now to let you know that I am closing this tab now. If you can't read a simple PDF correctly I can't help you any further. I fear I've wasted too much time as it is. EnduranceFun was right. I thought I'd give a try.

Having read the entire document before, I can tell that it does not say anything of the sort. More importantly, the math shows it must be discrimination, for when all other factors are adjusted, a gap still persists. The confounding variable is discrimination, pal. You should do the work yourself, if you can.

Please, just be intellectually honest for your own sake.

Posted by Judakel

@Archaen said:

@Judakel said:

@Archaen said:

@Judakel :

You're doing it wrong.

@People who can read: Enjoy the document.

I sincerely believe that your understanding of this document goes about as far as the introduction. That you read it, due to your poor critical thinking skills missed the words "may", "almost entirely", and the very weak "should not", due to your lack of knowledge on the subject of statistics went no further, and then decided to call it a day. Even the authors of this report agree that, when adjusting for compensable factors, a wage gap remains. If a gap persists after adjusting for all compensable factors, then it must be due to some form of discrimination. They just don't think it is large enough to be concerned about ("should not"), a normative analysis. You can't even tell positive analysis from normative analysis in that introduction.

This is embarrassing for you, but at least you've been outed as the wannabe you always were.

Lol. That is not what the document says. It specifically says later that it does not seem to be from discrimination. You really project yourself into everything, don't you?

Edit: I'm editing this now to let you know that I am closing this tab now. If you can't read a simple PDF correctly I can't help you any further. I fear I've wasted too much time as it is. EnduranceFun was right. I thought I'd give a try.

Here:

"The adjusted gap is attributable, to unknown degrees, to other explanatory factors that have been omitted from the analyses or to overt discrimination against female workers."

Posted by Chrisbot84

Not about to dig through 120 pages of this thread to see if these have been posted yet, so apologies. But I thought I'd share these two videos on the subject. First is from the kind of controversial Jim Sterling http://bit.ly/WAy3uW and the second is from Adam Sessler and his crew at Rev3games http://youtu.be/7HU7tkHSmm8

Edited by ToTheNines

Well written and interesting article as always (all though admittedly I didn't read every female reaction) Yet I find it sad that if you don't agree with the point it's making, then the consensus among the comments seems to be that you're a sexist, which I know for a fact that I'm not.

In my eyes a lot of the discussion and topics stopped being about equality long ago. Now it's become a battle of the feminists/white knights and the chauvinists. I personally refuse to take part in most of it. Unless something is truly unjust in the name of sexism. Where women aren't allowed certain rights that men are. Then I have a problem and I will voice that, but I will not take offense on the behalf of women for something as silly as the campaign above.. Yes it's beyond dumb and I can see why it could offend someone I guess, but a lot of things in society can be percieved as offensive to all kinds of groups and there will never be a truly non offensive society. Since everyones view of what is offensive differs and it always will imho.

What I'm trying to say is.. The picture above is wrong yes, but I don't think that it's deserving of the uproar either. To collate it with this huge battle of good and evil in modern society just seems a tad bit of an overreaction.

So yeah, thats what I think. It's just an opinion if nothing else. And I can't believe I even bothered to write anything other than interesting and well written article lawl.

Online
Edited by ptys

Giant Bomb really need to hire a female editor so we can have less of these pandering articles. There are far worse things happening in advertising, my local dentist has a hot model as their clinic poster girl... I mean it's a dentist, she doesn't even work there!!!

Edited by Milkman
@Chrisbot84 said:

Not about to dig through 120 pages of this thread to see if these have been posted yet, so apologies. But I thought I'd share these two videos on the subject. First is from the kind of controversial Jim Sterling http://bit.ly/WAy3uW and the second is from Adam Sessler and his crew at Rev3games http://youtu.be/7HU7tkHSmm8

Thanks for posting that. I really like the Rev3 video. I'd love to see steal that idea with just the whole crew sitting around, picking a topic and just shooting the shit about it.  
 
Which now that I think about it is kind of just the podcast but maybe just something a little more focused.
Posted by TheSouthernDandy

@Chrisbot84 said:

Not about to dig through 120 pages of this thread to see if these have been posted yet, so apologies. But I thought I'd share these two videos on the subject. First is from the kind of controversial Jim Sterling http://bit.ly/WAy3uW and the second is from Adam Sessler and his crew at Rev3games http://youtu.be/7HU7tkHSmm8

It's funny for as much crap as Jim Sterling gets, he's pretty often bang on.

Posted by JasonR86

@ptys said:

Giant Bomb really need to hire a female editor...

Oh God I would love to see the forums after that. They would fucking lose their shit.

Posted by Hailinel

@JasonR86 said:

@ptys said:

Giant Bomb really need to hire a female editor...

Oh God I would love to see the forums after that. They would fucking lose their shit.

It would be one hell of a sight to see.

Posted by JoshyLee

@Hailinel said:

@JasonR86 said:

@ptys said:

Giant Bomb really need to hire a female editor...

Oh God I would love to see the forums after that. They would fucking lose their shit.

It would be one hell of a sight to see.

I don't think people would mind. The issue isn't that we hate women. (even though you would like it to be as it would make us seem like terrible people) The issue is that Patrick is exploiting the idea of feminism so that people will pay attention to him. If he reported the fucking news no one would mind. But Alex is doing that. Patrick is trying to get page view through sensationalist bullshit.

Posted by Chrisbot84

@TheSouthernDandy: I love Jim too, but you're right the dude gets a lot of unjust hate.

Posted by CastleD

If some of you guys think the fuss over this statue is overblown, you have to start realizing that in society the only time something really matters is when it affects women. It doesn't matter if its as trivial as a statue, or life and death issues. For example, males commit suicide at a rate of 4 to 1 over females. Guess what, nobody cares (and that's just one example of many). 

Also, there's nothing brave and bold about Patrick Klepeck writing this article or his female friendly stance on these issues. Our entire media is feminist. Now, a journalist who criticizes aspects of  feminism, even the slightest, that takes brass balls, because you risk ostracizing yourself or even losing your job. So you guys should stop congratulating Klepeck as if he's some type of trailblazer. This article is as mainstream and safe as it gets. I get the sense that he likes to "troll", whether it be his fellow male gamers who he looks down upon, or jukeboxes.

It's presented as if females are usually silenced, so we're giving them a voice finally. Meanwhile, our entire media is female-centric (like HuffPo for example), and issues affecting women are discussed all day, every day, not to mention our government and schools who care mostly about women. As a man, I'm more annoyed by commercials on television that treat men as total morons and women as SuperSassySmart who have to "tolerate" the male moron, than this statue, even though I personally don't like it and think it's grotesque.

Video games are one of last forms of media that doesn't cater and pander to women, and that won't do. That's one reason you see a backlash from guys when this subject comes up. 

Final politically incorrect note: one reason the video game industry has been male dominated is because males have always been more interested in video games than females. I'm not exactly sure why that is, but from my observation its' mostly natural and not a social construct. It's not because men are evil misogynists, feel "threatened" by women, or any other phantom reasons. Misogyny exists of course, as does misandry, but it's overblown. Most men love women, want to be near women, enjoy working with them, and like doing things for women. I do.




Posted by TDot

Wow, this has been going for a while I wonder if it's gotten better... Oh still full of horrible people? Great. See ya.

Posted by dr_mantas

@JasonR86 said:

@ptys said:

Giant Bomb really need to hire a female editor...

Oh God I would love to see the forums after that. They would fucking lose their shit.

How so? I don't think anyone has anything against women in these forums. At least I hope not. Hating anyone, including men and women, is ridiculous. It's especially insane to hate an entire gender.

If people disagreed with, for example, some kind of feminist propaganda this hypothetical female editor said, then it wouldn't be any different than people disagreeing with Patrick.

Posted by Levio

@TDot said:

Wow, this has been going for a while I wonder if it's gotten better... Oh still full of horrible people? Great. See ya.

People are horrible everywhere; it's only here that they openly reveal it. So really, this is the safest place you could be. "The closer you are to danger, the farther you are from harm" and all that.

Posted by joshthebear

@Chrisbot84 said:

the second is from Adam Sessler and his crew at Rev3games http://youtu.be/7HU7tkHSmm8

Really dig this video, although it might just be that I'm a sucker for The Sess.

Posted by TDot

Like... all he did was ask women in the industry their opinion on the thing... If this was in a news paper people would read it and move on. But it's on a website, a gaming website at that, and suddenly there's close to 2,500 posts of complete irrationality and outrage. Do none of you just stop and think "hmm... maybe... just maybe, I don't need to lose my shit."

Posted by TDot

@CastleD said:

Most men love women, want to be near women, enjoy working with them, and like doing things for women. I do.

... you just don't want to hear their opinions on things.

Posted by CastleD
@TDot said:

@CastleD said:

Most men love women, want to be near women, enjoy working with them, and like doing things for women. I do.

... you just don't want to hear their opinions on things.

I find women who are critical of aspects of feminism to be more interesting, most of the stuff said in the article is the same old same old we get from the mainstream media day in and day out. Boring.
Posted by TDot

@CastleD said:

@TDot said:

@CastleD said:

Most men love women, want to be near women, enjoy working with them, and like doing things for women. I do.

... you just don't want to hear their opinions on things.

I find women who are critical of aspects of feminism to be more interesting, most of the stuff said in the article is the same old same old we get from the mainstream media day in and day out. Boring.

I don't know what you think feminism is but thinking this statue or sort of horrendous and sends a bad message to them isn't really any sort of radical statement.

Edited by CastleD
@TDot said:

@CastleD said:

@TDot said:

@CastleD said:

Most men love women, want to be near women, enjoy working with them, and like doing things for women. I do.

... you just don't want to hear their opinions on things.

I find women who are critical of aspects of feminism to be more interesting, most of the stuff said in the article is the same old same old we get from the mainstream media day in and day out. Boring.

I don't know what you think feminism is but thinking this statue or sort of horrendous and sends a bad message to them isn't really any sort of radical statement.

The statue, which I don't like either, doesn't exist in a vacuum, it's part of industry that makes murder simulators where the people being decapitated, mutilated, and bloodied are 90+% male. I wonder how many of these girls logged off after their post and gleefully took part in that. This also happened during the Duke Nukem controversy or any time something might even be mildly offensive to women. 

Something only matters when women are affected. I believe that's one reason you see a backlash on the net when it comes up.  Do you really believe everyone who dissents or disagrees is a "creepy neckbeard loser in a basement cave troll misogynist"? No, you don't.

Posted by Missacre

@CastleD said:

If some of you guys think the fuss over this statue is overblown, you have to start realizing that in society the only time something really matters is when it affects women. It doesn't matter if its as trivial as a statue, or life and death issues. For example, males commit suicide at a rate of 4 to 1 over females. Guess what, nobody cares (and that's just one example of many).

Also, there's nothing brave and bold about Patrick Klepeck writing this article or his female friendly stance on these issues. Our entire media is feminist. Now, a journalist who criticizes aspects of feminism, even the slightest, that takes brass balls, because you risk ostracizing yourself or even losing your job. So you guys should stop congratulating Klepeck as if he's some type of trailblazer. This article is as mainstream and safe as it gets. I get the sense that he likes to "troll", whether it be his fellow male gamers who he looks down upon, or jukeboxes.

It's presented as if females are usually silenced, so we're giving them a voice finally. Meanwhile, our entire media is female-centric (like HuffPo for example), and issues affecting women are discussed all day, every day, not to mention our government and schools who care mostly about women. As a man, I'm more annoyed by commercials on television that treat men as total morons and women as SuperSassySmart who have to "tolerate" the male moron, than this statue, even though I personally don't like it and think it's grotesque.

Video games are one of last forms of media that doesn't cater and pander to women, and that won't do. That's one reason you see a backlash from guys when this subject comes up.

Final politically incorrect note: one reason the video game industry has been male dominated is because males have always been more interested in video games than females. I'm not exactly sure why that is, but from my observation its' mostly natural and not a social construct. It's not because men are evil misogynists, feel "threatened" by women, or any other phantom reasons. Misogyny exists of course, as does misandry, but it's overblown. Most men love women, want to be near women, enjoy working with them, and like doing things for women. I do.

Oh god, this. This so much. You sir, I want to shake your hand. Finally, someone who sees the light and isn't randomly spouting feminazi propaganda in a feeble attempt to get laid. I totally agree with you, video games are one of the last things that are male-dominated, and I'll admit, I like it that way.

The reason all these feminists are bitching about how "sexist" and "misogynistic" video games are, is because this is what's getting more attention these days. If something else was in the media day in and day out, they would leave us alone. They just move on from fad to fad, and video games happens to be the most recent one. Sadly, though, with everyone apparently on their side, it seems as if video games are going to start changing, and for what? They're gonna leave the games industry in disrepair because they wanted games catered specifically to them for one or two years. By then, no one's gonna want to play games anymore, because feminists were bitching every step of the way.

I just hope people who are truly passionate about games holds on and waits for this feminist cancer to pass us by, hopefully by then, they haven't done too much damage to the industry.

Posted by Elfen

Yes the torso is appalling. Yes the fact that its a half naked female its offensive. It is no worse than being able to mutilate half naked female corpses in the game. That's just what the game is all about. They are just marketing a product to the demographic of future murderers.

Edited by biggest_loser

@Missacre said:

@CastleD said:

If some of you guys think the fuss over this statue is overblown, you have to start realizing that in society the only time something really matters is when it affects women. It doesn't matter if its as trivial as a statue, or life and death issues. For example, males commit suicide at a rate of 4 to 1 over females. Guess what, nobody cares (and that's just one example of many).

Also, there's nothing brave and bold about Patrick Klepeck writing this article or his female friendly stance on these issues. Our entire media is feminist. Now, a journalist who criticizes aspects of feminism, even the slightest, that takes brass balls, because you risk ostracizing yourself or even losing your job. So you guys should stop congratulating Klepeck as if he's some type of trailblazer. This article is as mainstream and safe as it gets. I get the sense that he likes to "troll", whether it be his fellow male gamers who he looks down upon, or jukeboxes.

It's presented as if females are usually silenced, so we're giving them a voice finally. Meanwhile, our entire media is female-centric (like HuffPo for example), and issues affecting women are discussed all day, every day, not to mention our government and schools who care mostly about women. As a man, I'm more annoyed by commercials on television that treat men as total morons and women as SuperSassySmart who have to "tolerate" the male moron, than this statue, even though I personally don't like it and think it's grotesque.

Video games are one of last forms of media that doesn't cater and pander to women, and that won't do. That's one reason you see a backlash from guys when this subject comes up.

Final politically incorrect note: one reason the video game industry has been male dominated is because males have always been more interested in video games than females. I'm not exactly sure why that is, but from my observation its' mostly natural and not a social construct. It's not because men are evil misogynists, feel "threatened" by women, or any other phantom reasons. Misogyny exists of course, as does misandry, but it's overblown. Most men love women, want to be near women, enjoy working with them, and like doing things for women. I do.

Oh god, this. This so much. You sir, I want to shake your hand. Finally, someone who sees the light and isn't randomly spouting feminazi propaganda in a feeble attempt to get laid. I totally agree with you, video games are one of the last things that are male-dominated, and I'll admit, I like it that way.

The reason all these feminists are bitching about how "sexist" and "misogynistic" video games are, is because this is what's getting more attention these days. If something else was in the media day in and day out, they would leave us alone. They just move on from fad to fad, and video games happens to be the most recent one. Sadly, though, with everyone apparently on their side, it seems as if video games are going to start changing, and for what? They're gonna leave the games industry in disrepair because they wanted games catered specifically to them for one or two years. By then, no one's gonna want to play games anymore, because feminists were bitching every step of the way.

I just hope people who are truly passionate about games holds on and waits for this feminist cancer to pass us by, hopefully by then, they haven't done too much damage to the industry.

I think you're both way off the mark here. Video games are no longer male dominated. That mentality has to end. Its gone beyond the basement. Games are now being made for everyone. It is something gamers have to come to terms with. More and more women and girls are playing games. This has nothing to do with feminists and feminism. That's just a dirty word blokes on the internet like to throw around like mud. A lot of female gamers wouldn't consider themselves feminists. A lot of them just want to invest in female characters that aren't scantily clad sex objects. Not only is wanting gaming to be "male-dominated" weird its also extremely male chauvinistic and essentially sexist. I'm calling that out to you as a bloke. If you think this is going to go away, I think you need to get out of the basement and realise gaming is expanding. Its not just for the lads anymore.

As for you friend: there was a time when women were portrayed as the dumb house wife in ads who had to crawl on their knees for men. Just remember that. That whole thing about the media being entirely female orientated is bull considering the number of male talk show hosts and anchors. How many female game reviewers are there? Do you have any examples of journalists losing their job for criticising feminism? That's still part of the media. If men love women so much why does this bloke think gaming should be male orientated and that feminism is a cancer? I think thats a disgusting, juvenile attitude.

Posted by zerostasis

So much hate from some of the comments... Sad...

Posted by zerostasis

@TDot said:

Like... all he did was ask women in the industry their opinion on the thing... If this was in a news paper people would read it and move on. But it's on a website, a gaming website at that, and suddenly there's close to 2,500 posts of complete irrationality and outrage. Do none of you just stop and think "hmm... maybe... just maybe, I don't need to lose my shit."

So much win on the last statement

Posted by Binman88

@biggest_loser said:

@Missacre said:

@CastleD said:

If some of you guys think the fuss over this statue is overblown, you have to start realizing that in society the only time something really matters is when it affects women. It doesn't matter if its as trivial as a statue, or life and death issues. For example, males commit suicide at a rate of 4 to 1 over females. Guess what, nobody cares (and that's just one example of many).

Also, there's nothing brave and bold about Patrick Klepeck writing this article or his female friendly stance on these issues. Our entire media is feminist. Now, a journalist who criticizes aspects of feminism, even the slightest, that takes brass balls, because you risk ostracizing yourself or even losing your job. So you guys should stop congratulating Klepeck as if he's some type of trailblazer. This article is as mainstream and safe as it gets. I get the sense that he likes to "troll", whether it be his fellow male gamers who he looks down upon, or jukeboxes.

It's presented as if females are usually silenced, so we're giving them a voice finally. Meanwhile, our entire media is female-centric (like HuffPo for example), and issues affecting women are discussed all day, every day, not to mention our government and schools who care mostly about women. As a man, I'm more annoyed by commercials on television that treat men as total morons and women as SuperSassySmart who have to "tolerate" the male moron, than this statue, even though I personally don't like it and think it's grotesque.

Video games are one of last forms of media that doesn't cater and pander to women, and that won't do. That's one reason you see a backlash from guys when this subject comes up.

Final politically incorrect note: one reason the video game industry has been male dominated is because males have always been more interested in video games than females. I'm not exactly sure why that is, but from my observation its' mostly natural and not a social construct. It's not because men are evil misogynists, feel "threatened" by women, or any other phantom reasons. Misogyny exists of course, as does misandry, but it's overblown. Most men love women, want to be near women, enjoy working with them, and like doing things for women. I do.

Oh god, this. This so much. You sir, I want to shake your hand. Finally, someone who sees the light and isn't randomly spouting feminazi propaganda in a feeble attempt to get laid. I totally agree with you, video games are one of the last things that are male-dominated, and I'll admit, I like it that way.

The reason all these feminists are bitching about how "sexist" and "misogynistic" video games are, is because this is what's getting more attention these days. If something else was in the media day in and day out, they would leave us alone. They just move on from fad to fad, and video games happens to be the most recent one. Sadly, though, with everyone apparently on their side, it seems as if video games are going to start changing, and for what? They're gonna leave the games industry in disrepair because they wanted games catered specifically to them for one or two years. By then, no one's gonna want to play games anymore, because feminists were bitching every step of the way.

I just hope people who are truly passionate about games holds on and waits for this feminist cancer to pass us by, hopefully by then, they haven't done too much damage to the industry.

I think you're both way off the mark here. Video games are no longer male dominated. That mentality has to end. Its gone beyond the basement. Games are now being made for everyone. It is something gamers have to come to terms with. More and more women and girls are playing games. This has nothing to do with feminists and feminism. That's just a dirty word blokes on the internet like to throw around like mud. A lot of female gamers wouldn't consider themselves feminists. A lot of them just want to invest in female characters that aren't scantily clad sex objects. Not only is wanting gaming to be "male-dominated" weird its also extremely male chauvinistic and essentially sexist. I'm calling that out to you as a bloke. If you think this is going to go away, I think you need to get out of the basement and realise gaming is expanding. Its not just for the lads anymore.

As for you friend: there was a time when women were portrayed as the dumb house wife in ads who had to crawl on their knees for men. Just remember that. That whole thing about the media being entirely female orientated is bull considering the number of male talk show hosts and anchors. If men love women so much why does this bloke think gaming should be male orientated and that feminism is a cancer? I think thats a disgusting, juvenile attitude.

This is why a decent discussion can't be had on these forums - no one on either side of the fence seems capable of not lowering themselves to pettiness and straw-man attacks, no matter how good their intentions might be. The fact that all of these arguments are presented so confidently and earnestly only makes them the more absurd.

Just to pick one thing on either side to comment briefly on:

Finally, someone who sees the light and isn't randomly spouting feminazi propaganda in a feeble attempt to get laid. I totally agree with you, video games are one of the last things that are male-dominated, and I'll admit, I like it that way.

Crazy. I don't think I need to explain; it's self-evident.

there was a time when women were portrayed as the dumb house wife in ads who had to crawl on their knees for men. Just remember that.

Crazy. The implication that things are being "evened up" makes it ok? You might want to clarify what you mean here. If it was bad then, it's bad now.

Edited by crcruz3

@Judakel said:

@crcruz3 said:

@Judakel said:

@crcruz3 said:

@Judakel said:

@crcruz3 said:

@Judakel said:

@crcruz3 said:

You said: "While on the job, women either do as much work as men or are simply too unproductive to be viable employees." and you are ignoring the 3rd option, they are less productive than men and receiving less money for it. That's Block's whole argument.

Are you an economist yourself? In that case, which school of economics is your preferred one?

I did not ignore his argument. I explained why he was simply wrong. You even quoted the section where I explained why he was wrong. There is literally no incentive for an employer to continue paying someone (even if it is less money) for lesser work. His third option is a fiction and you've taken my dismissal of it as simply "ignoring it". When an employer hires someone, they factor in the most they are willing to pay someone for the desired work into their budget. They don't reign it in if the work is shoddy since they get nothing out of it. It would be better in the long run to simply hire someone else who won't do shoddy work. They would save more money that way. Not a single employer will look at an under-performing employee and say "we will keep him on, but pay him less". Nor do they hire someone on the expectation that they will "work less, but at least we can pay them less". The gap comes about well after someone has been hired, and it can simply not come about due to poor performance. Poor performers get fired. Block didn't even bother to prove his point. He just threw together a blatantly illogical explanation that fits with his Darwinian, free-market bullshit. I can see how, if you believe in the free market, you might be tempted to apply it to microeconomics in the way he has. Unfortunately, that nonsense is only passable in macroeconomics, and even there people have caught on.

It should be fairly obvious where I land as far as schools of economics are concerned.

I am an employer myself and the only thing that is obvious to me is that you are talking about a theoretical employer that doesn't exist. And again you are calling Block darwinian and bullshitter, ad hominem all over.

All human beings are different, equal work is nonsense. I have 250 employees and they are not equally productive. Even those performing the same tasks.

I'm going to play some games now, it's 9:46 pm here in Argentina. 'Night.

An ad hominem attack is when someone attacks the person instead of the argument. I can attack the person as much as I like, as long as I attack the argument too. This employer does exist, because he is a rational actor in the field of economics. Something most employers are. If your employees are not roughly equal in their productivity while working the same number of hours and having the same duties, then I am not sure why you have kept them on. You do realize that no one expects exactly the same amount of productivity, but as far as it is measurable, all individuals performing the same function should be equally productive in your Darwinian wonderland.

If they were equally productive I would pay them the same as in your: equal work, equal pay. As they are not, I pay them proportionally to the subjective, not easily measurable, productivity.

Calling Block names is foolish and coward as he is not here to defend himself. Calling me names is just rude and I don't appreciate it.

Then you are an unethical employer, for you cannot measure their "lesser productivity" in anything more than subjective ways, yet see it fit to nonetheless quantify this unmeasurable productivity in their paychecks. The very nature of what you're doing is so incredibly chilling, because the productivity of these employees may one day rise to meet that of the others, but since you have nothing but your own subjective opinion as to their levels of productivity, you may continue to pay them as if they are doing poor work.

Do you know, my dear entrepreneur, why most businesses try to avoid such methods? It isn't ethics, surely. Most businesses under a capitalist system are not concerned with ethics. Not, it is for the following reasons: One, it can be taxing to keep an eye on the productivity of every employee so that your own subjective, half-assed assessment can determine whether they will get a raise or not, and two, there is very little motivation for improvement were these comparatively poorly paid employees to find out that they are seen as poor workers deserving of fewer wages.

By the way, I love the fact that, as far as I can tell, you only looked at your business and decided to declare a more rational approach as only existing in theory. Someone should tell most mid-large size business owners that.

I am sorry you're such a diehard Austrian fanatic that you think it is foolish to mock Block. Believe me, Block has heard everything I've mentioned here many times over from other sources. He has not defended himself particularly well when confronted.

You assume a lot of things.

Nobody lives in a vacuum, I know a whole bunch of entrepreneurs and some of them are big and we talk about these kind of stuff a lot.

I don't determine productivity of all my employees by myself. I don't even know some of them, they work in different provinces (states for the US). Other people do that for me.

Measuring productivity is hard and you seem to ignore it. I'm both a Mechanical and an Electrical Engineer and I have studied Taylor, Fayol and others in subjects of productivity. In a factory is easy to measure the output of some people, however it's very hard to measure the productivity of a secretary, a lawyer and even an accountant.

Diehard Austrian fanatic? Unethical? Half-assed assessments?

As I said, you assume too much.

By the way, do you and your rich friends realize Walter Block also thinks the income disparity between blacks and whites is due to blacks being lazy? I wouldn't put it past what seems like a cadre of exploiting compadres, but I am just wondering.

When I said that we talk about these kind of stuff a lot I was referring to productivity, human resources and the like, not to talking about Walter Block. Most of my really rich friends don't even know him.

It's your right to see entrepreneurs as a cadre of exploiting compadres.