Income Inequality Is A Myth

[Plasmaball]

You'll not get an answer to that question. The lib narrative on this issue will not allow it.
They want to control the discussion and limit to the top paid executives and board members. Why? Because the libs see the numbers are big and scary..

saying stupid things isnt helping, you should stop.

Ditto

i didnt make the OP

 

[The Rabbi]

As usual a con doesn't understand any issue without it being black-and-white. Nuance just escapes you doesn't. I don't think we should be paid equally. I support the idea of a CEO making much more money than a low level worker. The problem isn't inequality itself. The problem is the enormous disparity that there actually is between the middle class and the mega wealthy. The top 1% controls 40% of the nation's wealth. That is what's wrong. Do you honestly believe that the 1% deserves that much wealth? Do you honestly believe the top 1% EARNED that money? No way.

Why is that wrong? Why do you get to say who "deserves" what?

People deserve the income their labor yields. The top 1% is benefiting from most of the labor that low level workers are putting in.

Except Marxism is dead.
Next.

 

[LoneLaugher]

Mac's scenario is too refined.

There is evidence that compensation between men and women is unequal. You won't be able to find a study of any kind discussing people with matching resume's and the same exact occupation.

That is why nobody has answered the question.

There is a study by a Christina Hoff Summers which claims thatbthe gap is almost closed. Another by the Dept. of Labor says that there is a .23 cent per dollar difference....but gives reasons other than gender for the wage gap.

It exists. The only question left to ponder is why.

 

[The Rabbi]

You'll not get an answer to that question. The lib narrative on this issue will not allow it.
They want to control the discussion and limit to the top paid executives and board members. Why? Because the libs see the numbers are big and scary..

Well, I haven't received a straight answer yet.

That's weird, since I hear about this so often.

Seems like a reasonable question.

.

Well apply some simple logic. 1) i am not sure you will find actual evidence, because frankly who would admit to it? 2) for sake of argument we know sexism happens. We know that some men feel women shouldnt be in the work force, doing certain jobs, and are not at the same level as other men. ( see military or fireman as an example.) So the idea that their are some men who reluctantly hire women, would pay them less. Its not that far of a stretch.

As for income inequality. Well again like everything else on this planet, there has to be a balance. No i dont mean everyones wage has to be equal. I am talking ratios. There will always be rich, middle and poor classes, but if you dont have that balance things will get wonky for any nation. We are seeing a surge in the separation of rich to poor. Thats an issue that needs to be fixed.

There is nothing wrong with being rich, nobody has ever made that argument that you shouldn't have that money.( at least in any majority, one person here or there is nothing to worry about)

The issues come with the idea that some rich rig the game, they give out bonuses after taxing tax payer bailouts, or use tax loopholes to keep out of paying taxes ( see rigging the game).

Once you get past the stupid left vs right thing the OP and a few others are playing at you can actually see the issues at hand, but some people can't get past being a partisan.

OK, so because you have a stereotype of no-doubt middle class white men who think women shouldn't work (maybe from watching Archie Bunker) you just KNOW those same men are making hiring decisions and giving women less money. This despite the substantial penalties for such behavior.
Of course you have no proof for that. You just "know" it is the case because it is "reasonable." This is typical liberal thought: we start with the stereotype we know is true, we ignore contrary facts, we proceed to a "reasonable" conclusion.

The number of "rich" people who took bailouts is statistically nil. You will need another red herring to make your case.

 

[Mac1958]

You'll not get an answer to that question. The lib narrative on this issue will not allow it.
They want to control the discussion and limit to the top paid executives and board members. Why? Because the libs see the numbers are big and scary..

Well, I haven't received a straight answer yet.

That's weird, since I hear about this so often.

Seems like a reasonable question.

.

Well apply some simple logic. 1) i am not sure you will find actual evidence, because frankly who would admit to it? 2) for sake of argument we know sexism happens. We know that some men feel women shouldnt be in the work force, doing certain jobs, and are not at the same level as other men. ( see military or fireman as an example.) So the idea that their are some men who reluctantly hire women, would pay them less. Its not that far of a stretch.

That's fine and all, but a little evidence would be helpful. I watched a conversation on MSNBC (of course) a few days ago with three or four women who were just taking for granted that the woman in my example would be paid 30% less. None of them produced any evidence, they just talked about how terrible it is. The only way to make such an accusation is if there is apples-to-apples data, such as my question suggests.

Without evidence, it just comes off as more political rhetoric. I was expecting a flood of links in response to my question, and nothing. Not a good sign.

Wouldn't you expect evidence from an accusation that a conservative makes?

.

 

[The Rabbi]

Mac's scenario is too refined.

There is evidence that compensation between men and women is unequal. You won't be able to find a study of any kind discussing people with matching resume's and the same exact occupation.

That is why nobody has answered the question.

There is a study by a Christina Hoff Summers which claims thatbthe gap is almost closed. Another by the Dept. of Labor says that there is a .23 cent per dollar difference....but gives reasons other than gender for the wage gap.

It exists. The only question left to ponder is why.

Actually Sowell presents such a study, controlled for time off, entry to the workforce etc. He states women actually earn very slightly more than men.

 

[Plasmaball]

Well, I haven't received a straight answer yet.

That's weird, since I hear about this so often.

Seems like a reasonable question.

.

Well apply some simple logic. 1) i am not sure you will find actual evidence, because frankly who would admit to it? 2) for sake of argument we know sexism happens. We know that some men feel women shouldnt be in the work force, doing certain jobs, and are not at the same level as other men. ( see military or fireman as an example.) So the idea that their are some men who reluctantly hire women, would pay them less. Its not that far of a stretch.

As for income inequality. Well again like everything else on this planet, there has to be a balance. No i dont mean everyones wage has to be equal. I am talking ratios. There will always be rich, middle and poor classes, but if you dont have that balance things will get wonky for any nation. We are seeing a surge in the separation of rich to poor. Thats an issue that needs to be fixed.

There is nothing wrong with being rich, nobody has ever made that argument that you shouldn't have that money.( at least in any majority, one person here or there is nothing to worry about)

The issues come with the idea that some rich rig the game, they give out bonuses after taxing tax payer bailouts, or use tax loopholes to keep out of paying taxes ( see rigging the game).

Once you get past the stupid left vs right thing the OP and a few others are playing at you can actually see the issues at hand, but some people can't get past being a partisan.

OK, so because you have a stereotype of no-doubt middle class white men who think women shouldn't work (maybe from watching Archie Bunker) you just KNOW those same men are making hiring decisions and giving women less money. This despite the substantial penalties for such behavior.
Of course you have no proof for that. You just "know" it is the case because it is "reasonable." This is typical liberal thought: we start with the stereotype we know is true, we ignore contrary facts, we proceed to a "reasonable" conclusion.

The number of "rich" people who took bailouts is statistically nil. You will need another red herring to make your case.

I've seen people on here like you argue women should never have been given the right to vote.

then again i really have no interest in talking to you about this.

 

[mudwhistle]

Well apply some simple logic. 1) i am not sure you will find actual evidence, because frankly who would admit to it? 2) for sake of argument we know sexism happens. We know that some men feel women shouldnt be in the work force, doing certain jobs, and are not at the same level as other men. ( see military or fireman as an example.) So the idea that their are some men who reluctantly hire women, would pay them less. Its not that far of a stretch.

As for income inequality. Well again like everything else on this planet, there has to be a balance. No i dont mean everyones wage has to be equal. I am talking ratios. There will always be rich, middle and poor classes, but if you dont have that balance things will get wonky for any nation. We are seeing a surge in the separation of rich to poor. Thats an issue that needs to be fixed.

There is nothing wrong with being rich, nobody has ever made that argument that you shouldn't have that money.( at least in any majority, one person here or there is nothing to worry about)

The issues come with the idea that some rich rig the game, they give out bonuses after taxing tax payer bailouts, or use tax loopholes to keep out of paying taxes ( see rigging the game).

Once you get past the stupid left vs right thing the OP and a few others are playing at you can actually see the issues at hand, but some people can't get past being a partisan.

OK, so because you have a stereotype of no-doubt middle class white men who think women shouldn't work (maybe from watching Archie Bunker) you just KNOW those same men are making hiring decisions and giving women less money. This despite the substantial penalties for such behavior.
Of course you have no proof for that. You just "know" it is the case because it is "reasonable." This is typical liberal thought: we start with the stereotype we know is true, we ignore contrary facts, we proceed to a "reasonable" conclusion.

The number of "rich" people who took bailouts is statistically nil. You will need another red herring to make your case.

I've seen people on here like you argue women should never have been given the right to vote.

then again i really have no interest in talking to you about this.

Then why bring it up?

 

[Plasmaball]

Well, I haven't received a straight answer yet.

That's weird, since I hear about this so often.

Seems like a reasonable question.

.

Well apply some simple logic. 1) i am not sure you will find actual evidence, because frankly who would admit to it? 2) for sake of argument we know sexism happens. We know that some men feel women shouldnt be in the work force, doing certain jobs, and are not at the same level as other men. ( see military or fireman as an example.) So the idea that their are some men who reluctantly hire women, would pay them less. Its not that far of a stretch.

That's fine and all, but a little evidence would be helpful. I watched a conversation on MSNBC (of course) a few days ago with three or four women who were just taking for granted that the woman in my example would be paid 30% less. None of them produced any evidence, they just talked about how terrible it is. The only way to make such an accusation is if there is apples-to-apples data, such as my question suggests.

Without evidence, it just comes off as more political rhetoric. I was expecting a flood of links in response to my question, and nothing. Not a good sign.

Wouldn't you expect evidence from an accusation that a conservative makes?

.

honestly, no i dont expect links when a con throws out an opinion. That is a rare thing these days. ( blogs and op-ed's are not sources btw).

Well dont look to me for a link on data, i wouldnt even know where to begin honestly. Im not a research type of guy.

here is the first link. Yes is its huffpuff but if you read the article it supports the idea that 30% less is not correct. Granted they are using a more strict pool.

New PayScale Study Challenges Conventional Thinking On Why Women Make Less Than Men

and then you have this one:
Closing The Gender Wage Gap Would Create 'Huge' Economic Stimulus, Economists Say

Unlocking the full potential of women in the US economy | Organization Practice | McKinsey & Company

 

[Plasmaball]

OK, so because you have a stereotype of no-doubt middle class white men who think women shouldn't work (maybe from watching Archie Bunker) you just KNOW those same men are making hiring decisions and giving women less money. This despite the substantial penalties for such behavior.
Of course you have no proof for that. You just "know" it is the case because it is "reasonable." This is typical liberal thought: we start with the stereotype we know is true, we ignore contrary facts, we proceed to a "reasonable" conclusion.

The number of "rich" people who took bailouts is statistically nil. You will need another red herring to make your case.

I've seen people on here like you argue women should never have been given the right to vote.

then again i really have no interest in talking to you about this.

Then why bring it up?

bring what up?

 

[The Rabbi]

Well apply some simple logic. 1) i am not sure you will find actual evidence, because frankly who would admit to it? 2) for sake of argument we know sexism happens. We know that some men feel women shouldnt be in the work force, doing certain jobs, and are not at the same level as other men. ( see military or fireman as an example.) So the idea that their are some men who reluctantly hire women, would pay them less. Its not that far of a stretch.

As for income inequality. Well again like everything else on this planet, there has to be a balance. No i dont mean everyones wage has to be equal. I am talking ratios. There will always be rich, middle and poor classes, but if you dont have that balance things will get wonky for any nation. We are seeing a surge in the separation of rich to poor. Thats an issue that needs to be fixed.

There is nothing wrong with being rich, nobody has ever made that argument that you shouldn't have that money.( at least in any majority, one person here or there is nothing to worry about)

The issues come with the idea that some rich rig the game, they give out bonuses after taxing tax payer bailouts, or use tax loopholes to keep out of paying taxes ( see rigging the game).

Once you get past the stupid left vs right thing the OP and a few others are playing at you can actually see the issues at hand, but some people can't get past being a partisan.

OK, so because you have a stereotype of no-doubt middle class white men who think women shouldn't work (maybe from watching Archie Bunker) you just KNOW those same men are making hiring decisions and giving women less money. This despite the substantial penalties for such behavior.
Of course you have no proof for that. You just "know" it is the case because it is "reasonable." This is typical liberal thought: we start with the stereotype we know is true, we ignore contrary facts, we proceed to a "reasonable" conclusion.

The number of "rich" people who took bailouts is statistically nil. You will need another red herring to make your case.

I've seen people on here like you argue women should never have been given the right to vote.

then again i really have no interest in talking to you about this.

Because you know you'll have your ass handed to you. Again. Like always.

Please, provide proof to anything you say.

 

[The Rabbi]

Well apply some simple logic. 1) i am not sure you will find actual evidence, because frankly who would admit to it? 2) for sake of argument we know sexism happens. We know that some men feel women shouldnt be in the work force, doing certain jobs, and are not at the same level as other men. ( see military or fireman as an example.) So the idea that their are some men who reluctantly hire women, would pay them less. Its not that far of a stretch.

That's fine and all, but a little evidence would be helpful. I watched a conversation on MSNBC (of course) a few days ago with three or four women who were just taking for granted that the woman in my example would be paid 30% less. None of them produced any evidence, they just talked about how terrible it is. The only way to make such an accusation is if there is apples-to-apples data, such as my question suggests.

Without evidence, it just comes off as more political rhetoric. I was expecting a flood of links in response to my question, and nothing. Not a good sign.

Wouldn't you expect evidence from an accusation that a conservative makes?

.

honestly, no i dont expect links when a con throws out an opinion. That is a rare thing these days. ( blogs and op-ed's are not sources btw).

Well dont look to me for a link on data, i wouldnt even know where to begin honestly. Im not a research type of guy.

here is the first link. Yes is its huffpuff but if you read the article it supports the idea that 30% less is not correct. Granted they are using a more strict pool.

New PayScale Study Challenges Conventional Thinking On Why Women Make Less Than Men

and then you have this one:
Closing The Gender Wage Gap Would Create 'Huge' Economic Stimulus, Economists Say

Unlocking the full potential of women in the US economy | Organization Practice | McKinsey & Company

You should read your own links.

The survey from salary information site Payscale appears to contradict a wide body of research on the gender wage gap. Still, the survey's lead researcher, economist Katie Bardaro, told The Huffington Post it's a "misbegotten myth" that a man working the same job and with the same background as a woman would get paid more.

The other links just repeat the same nonsense.

 

[Plasmaball]

That's fine and all, but a little evidence would be helpful. I watched a conversation on MSNBC (of course) a few days ago with three or four women who were just taking for granted that the woman in my example would be paid 30% less. None of them produced any evidence, they just talked about how terrible it is. The only way to make such an accusation is if there is apples-to-apples data, such as my question suggests.

Without evidence, it just comes off as more political rhetoric. I was expecting a flood of links in response to my question, and nothing. Not a good sign.

Wouldn't you expect evidence from an accusation that a conservative makes?

.

honestly, no i dont expect links when a con throws out an opinion. That is a rare thing these days. ( blogs and op-ed's are not sources btw).

Well dont look to me for a link on data, i wouldnt even know where to begin honestly. Im not a research type of guy.

here is the first link. Yes is its huffpuff but if you read the article it supports the idea that 30% less is not correct. Granted they are using a more strict pool.

New PayScale Study Challenges Conventional Thinking On Why Women Make Less Than Men

and then you have this one:
Closing The Gender Wage Gap Would Create 'Huge' Economic Stimulus, Economists Say

Unlocking the full potential of women in the US economy | Organization Practice | McKinsey & Company

You should read your own links.

The survey from salary information site Payscale appears to contradict a wide body of research on the gender wage gap. Still, the survey's lead researcher, economist Katie Bardaro, told The Huffington Post it's a "misbegotten myth" that a man working the same job and with the same background as a woman would get paid more.

The other links just repeat the same nonsense.

you are ******* retarded you know this? read the bold you moron. i already accounted for that.

go play tag with a moving train.

 

[thereisnospoon]

You need to watch this video to understand the truth of my assertion that income inequality is simply a liberal myth.

Thomas Sowell Dismantles Feminism and Racialism in under 5 Minutes - YouTube

like i've said these ass clown republicans, the stupid people, keep following stupid people ... its like a moth drawn to a light... these republican ass clowns can't help themselves ... hey ass clown republicans that bulb is hot!!!

As opposed to the assclown Democrats.

All those wealthy northeastern blue blood democrats have armies of accountants to assist them with every tax dodge known to man kind..
Then out of the other side of their martini stench mouths they ***** about tax cuts for the wealthy..
I cannot stand the man, but at least Warren Buffet is somewhat honest..Does anyone think Teresa Heinz is going to give up her tax loopholes? Hell ******* NO!

 

[thereisnospoon]

And as for this nonsense that there should be no income disparity, I don't see Obama doing anything about it other than making it worse at the same time he's bitching about it. Obama raises excise taxes and companies pass them on to the consumer. He stagnates incomes with his Obamacare regulations forcing companies to cut employees to under a set number of hours or face higher taxes.


When it comes to income inequality, this country isn't as bad as Mexico. In that country there are the haves and the have nots. The number one reason most come to America is because there used to be at least a chance for you to become comfortably wealthy if not rich. Obama is doing what he can to end all of that.

Like any other politician, Obama NEEDS wealthy people.
That's the style over the substance.
While democrats run around preaching their minions that "I am for you. The little guy". t
Then they are busily glad handing anyone with money who is willing to donate to their campaign or the DNC.
Wealthy ems know full well they will not be hurt by the rhetoric. The wealthiest Americans are what some call, "the money is no object" crowd.
They don't care what the government does. They don't care is gas goes to $10 per gallon.
Then there is the dependency class. They don't care about the cost of anything because they know government will be there to bail them out.
This leaves the middle class. The ones who help pay the bills run up by government. The ones who feel it the most.
Yet, too stupid to open their eyes, middle class mostly former college students have good memories of their indoctrination to the political left don't realize they are getting the three finger tuck job, keep voting for those who provide social safety nets and other causes.

 

[Londoner]

Listen carefully.

Sowell says that all things being equal - meaning blacks and woman with the same level of education and experience - there is no inequity of distribution. This does not address the fact that the percentage of blacks with college degrees is far less than that of whites, so his essential qualification turns out to be a quick little card trick.

But there's an even bigger problem with the OPs post. It's from 1981, prior to the Reagan Revolution's partial erosion of Affirmative Action (based on more market driven solutions to equity, some successful, some terrible). But, so this interview took place during the high tide of Affirmative Action, after racial and gender equality policies had been firmly entrenched for nearly two decades.

There are reports that the racial "equity gap" is growing. I haven't evaluated them, but I'd love to see people wrestle with both sides before launching conclusions.
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/01/us/01race.html?_r=0

I haven't studied the issue enough to feel confident about the data from either side of the aisle, but citing some heavily qualified comments from 1981 which are not backed up by any data by Sowell or the OP makes me think this is another Republican hit job. Meaning: the OP hasn't devoted a lot of time to studying this issue. I suspect he's done zero heavy lifting or hard research or compared the data across different disciplines and political sources. He's just looking to feed low-information voters their daily cat nip.

 

[mudwhistle]

I've seen people on here like you argue women should never have been given the right to vote.

then again i really have no interest in talking to you about this.

Then why bring it up?

bring what up?

Women's suffrage.

You forgot what you said?

Not enough shiny objects to keep your attention?

 

[mudwhistle]

Listen carefully.

Sowell says that all things being equal - meaning blacks and woman with the same level of education and experience - there is no inequity of distribution. This does not address the fact that the percentage of blacks with college degrees is far less than that of whites, so his essential qualification turns out to be a quick little card trick.

But there's an even bigger problem with the OPs post. It's from 1981, prior to the Reagan Revolution's partial erosion of Affirmative Action (based on more market driven solutions to equity, some successful, some terrible). But, so this interview took place during the high tide of Affirmative Action, after racial and gender equality policies had been firmly entrenched for nearly two decades.

There are reports that the racial "equity gap" is growing. I haven't evaluated them, but I'd love to see people wrestle with both sides before launching conclusions.
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/01/us/01race.html?_r=0

I haven't studied the issue enough to feel confident about the data from either side of the aisle, but citing some heavily qualified comments from 1981 which are not backed up by any data by Sowell or the OP makes me think this is another Republican hit job. Meaning: the OP hasn't devoted a lot of time to studying this issue. I suspect he's done zero heavy lifting or hard research or compared the data across different disciplines and political sources. He's just looking to feed low-information voters their daily cat nip.

**** you

Hard research. Meaning repeating what your professor taught you? Or repeating the nonsense that the New York Times promotes in their op-eds?

Again.....**** you.

 

[LoneLaugher]

How do you like that? Londoner gives you what you want......a serious reply.....and you do that to him?

That is why you get shit from me. You are shit.

 

[Londoner]

Listen carefully.

Sowell says that all things being equal - meaning blacks and woman with the same level of education and experience - there is no inequity of distribution. This does not address the fact that the percentage of blacks with college degrees is far less than that of whites, so his essential qualification turns out to be a quick little card trick.

But there's an even bigger problem with the OPs post. It's from 1981, prior to the Reagan Revolution's partial erosion of Affirmative Action (based on more market driven solutions to equity, some successful, some terrible). But, so this interview took place during the high tide of Affirmative Action, after racial and gender equality policies had been firmly entrenched for nearly two decades.

There are reports that the racial "equity gap" is growing. I haven't evaluated them, but I'd love to see people wrestle with both sides before launching conclusions.
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/01/us/01race.html?_r=0

I haven't studied the issue enough to feel confident about the data from either side of the aisle, but citing some heavily qualified comments from 1981 which are not backed up by any data by Sowell or the OP makes me think this is another Republican hit job. Meaning: the OP hasn't devoted a lot of time to studying this issue. I suspect he's done zero heavy lifting or hard research or compared the data across different disciplines and political sources. He's just looking to feed low-information voters their daily cat nip.

**** you

Hard research. Meaning repeating what your professor taught you? Or repeating the nonsense that the New York Times promotes in their op-eds?

Again.....**** you.

Wrong. I said in my post that I didn't evaluate the data, which makes my source just like yours - bullshit until corroborated with statistics. I'll say it again: I have not evaluated the claims of either side. For all I know blacks and women are living like kings, but you might want to use a source that isn't over 30 years old, otherwise it makes it look like you're an agenda driven spammer. Why not point to the fact that we have a black president, which would have been unthinkable 30 years ago. Or point to the current number of female CEO's and politicians, also unthinkable 30 years ago. I'm just saying that you can make your point without looking like you were doing a typical cut and paste hit job ( using a source from [wait for it] 1981).