Professor Called Racist For Correcting Black Student's Grammar & Punctuation

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
101

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

[quote]Pj92x wrote:

The only thing we are openly disagreeing on is wether or not sobels stance on it is biased or not.

[/quote]

I don’t know who sobels is.

If you are referring to Sowell, his “stance” is that the disparity in pay is due to many factors, however life choices and physical differences appear to make up the bulk of those disparities. And while sexism likely exists, it isn’t as big as a factor as the others.

Either way… I stopped reading your ramble after sobels. You just spent two pages arguing with me, only to say we agree. Great! e-beers all around. [/quote]

It is called a typo dude. Also his book sucked. His analysis referred to the soviet union as communist which is hilarious. He is the only person I know who is fairly known that describes the soviet union as communist lol.

They were state capitalist with centralised production and wage labour. Communism is not an economic system but a epoch which communists want to see int he future, which is a stateless government less planet without wages, without private enterprise. It is an epoch of history we have never experienced. Yet he used it to describe the soviet union.

Now if he is that illiterate on soviet economic and production, while claiming to be an intelligent analyst of economic and social systems, then how on earth can he be trusted not to show this kind of utter uninformed stance on his view of discrimination in the workplace?

I will probably buy his book a conflict of visions soon because someone recommended it, but I find his views pretty stale and dogmatic and his idea that fee markets lead to liberty is in my view something highly disproven. I like his capacity for public speaking and willingness to debate though.

102

[quote]Pj92x wrote:

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

[quote]ZJStrope wrote:

[quote]BlueCollarTr8n wrote:

[quote]Pj92x wrote:
In 2008 Catherine DesRoches and colleagues from the Mongan Institute for Health Policy at Massachusetts General Hospital mailed surveys to more than 3,000 life sciences faculty members at the top 50 universities [/quote]

I would love to see the results of surveys that ask evreryone to rate their productivity aginst their peers.
[/quote]

LoL. We joke about that all the time. Everyone thinks they are the shit [/quote]

without question.

It would a survey full of “5 star effort” and “I’m constantly fixing the mistakes everyone else makes”.

[/quote]

But shit male workers working the same job for the same company are paid equally to their more productive equal working the same job. So that explanation is hardly sound. It is gender that differentiates equal position pay, not output.[/quote]

Who says this is true. No graph you have produced has said that a male with less output in the same company at the same position is making more than a more productive female counterpart. You seem to be drawing these conclusions from what you read but you also seem to be reading to support pre-held ideologies and therefore are not seeing what the rest of us are. Your evidence is not showing what you think it is. In fact, in most instances, the evidence is disagreeing with you and the only thing that is agreeing with you is the speculation of the authors. But again, their agenda is showing.

103

[quote]Pj92x wrote:
fee markets lead to liberty is in my view something highly disproven. [/quote]

oh boy…

104

[quote]jbpick86 wrote:

[quote]Pj92x wrote:

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

[quote]ZJStrope wrote:

[quote]BlueCollarTr8n wrote:

[quote]Pj92x wrote:
In 2008 Catherine DesRoches and colleagues from the Mongan Institute for Health Policy at Massachusetts General Hospital mailed surveys to more than 3,000 life sciences faculty members at the top 50 universities [/quote]

I would love to see the results of surveys that ask evreryone to rate their productivity aginst their peers.
[/quote]

LoL. We joke about that all the time. Everyone thinks they are the shit [/quote]

without question.

It would a survey full of “5 star effort” and “I’m constantly fixing the mistakes everyone else makes”.

[/quote]

But shit male workers working the same job for the same company are paid equally to their more productive equal working the same job. So that explanation is hardly sound. It is gender that differentiates equal position pay, not output.[/quote]

Who says this is true. No graph you have produced has said that a male with less output in the same company at the same position is making more than a more productive female counterpart. You seem to be drawing these conclusions from what you read but you also seem to be reading to support pre-held ideologies and therefore are not seeing what the rest of us are. Your evidence is not showing what you think it is. In fact, in most instances, the evidence is disagreeing with you and the only thing that is agreeing with you is the speculation of the authors. But again, their agenda is showing. [/quote]

Annnnnd there you have it, this post sums up this thread nicely.

105

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

[quote]Pj92x wrote:
fee markets lead to liberty is in my view something highly disproven. [/quote]

oh boy…

[/quote]

Name one place that the free markets lead to widespread wealth and wellbeing. Obvious europe and american economies do not count as imperialism and slavery are monopoly capitalism and thus are not free market systems.

106

Do you have evidence to show that output is the reason for pay difference? Where I work all managers make the same, all general managers amk the same, all basic manual labour workers make the same. Each group has a set pay. It is not output based, I don’t know any corporation that has individual pay scales for their workforce apart from elite jobs.

It is the elite and high paying jobs where women are paid less. Not kitchen workers and general managers.

107

[quote]Pj92x wrote:

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

[quote]Pj92x wrote:
fee markets lead to liberty is in my view something highly disproven. [/quote]

oh boy…

[/quote]

Name one place that the free markets lead to widespread wealth and wellbeing. Obvious europe and american economies do not count as imperialism and slavery are monopoly capitalism and thus are not free market systems. [/quote]

oh boy…

[quote]Pj92x wrote:
I don’t know any corporation that has individual pay scales for their workforce [/quote]

You need to get out more.

108

[quote]Pj92x wrote:
I don’t know any corporation that has individual pay scales for their workforce apart from elite jobs.

[/quote]

I have never worked for a company that DID NOT have them.

109

[quote]Pj92x wrote:
Do you have evidence to show that output is the reason for pay difference? Where I work all managers make the same, all general managers amk the same, all basic manual labour workers make the same. Each group has a set pay. It is not output based, I don’t know any corporation that has individual pay scales for their workforce apart from elite jobs.

It is the elite and high paying jobs where women are paid less. Not kitchen workers and general managers.[/quote]

You serious?? Maybe at the elite level there are just more elite men because a much larger percent of men devote their lives to their work therefore there is a much larger pool to choose from. With women the pool is smaller because there are more women who choose to split time between career and domestic duties. So when there is a large pool vs a small pool, or course the large pool will create more elite. How are you not seeing this??

110

[quote]UtahLama wrote:

[quote]Pj92x wrote:
I don’t know any corporation that has individual pay scales for their workforce apart from elite jobs.

[/quote]

I have never worked for a company that DID NOT have them.[/quote]

I can tell you without question is it the norm for people to be paid differently, even when they have the same title. The vast majority of private enterprise works like this. It is called incentive.

There is a reason talking about how much you get paid with coworkers is a fire-able offense.

111

[quote]jbpick86 wrote:

[quote]Pj92x wrote:
Do you have evidence to show that output is the reason for pay difference? Where I work all managers make the same, all general managers amk the same, all basic manual labour workers make the same. Each group has a set pay. It is not output based, I don’t know any corporation that has individual pay scales for their workforce apart from elite jobs.

It is the elite and high paying jobs where women are paid less. Not kitchen workers and general managers.[/quote]

You serious?? Maybe at the elite level there are just more elite men because a much larger percent of men devote their lives to their work therefore there is a much larger pool to choose from. With women the pool is smaller because there are more women who choose to split time between career and domestic duties. So when there is a large pool vs a small pool, or course the large pool will create more elite. How are you not seeing this??[/quote]

Well, in his credit, he alluded to this idea when he states the structure we currently have in place inherently discriminates. I would argue it’s not discriminatory b/c, believe it or not, everyone is not equal.

That all being said, if you are from Europe, which is safe assumption, their laws are structured so that the workers have an advantage over the employers.

Case in point. One of the companies I worked for had an operation in France. An employee was sick or something for like 2 years. The company replaced this person; however, continued to pay the employee (based on law). When the employee came back, they had a job with similar pay as before, but not the exact same job because, you can’t function as a relatively small business without an employee. So this person quits stating the company forced her out, wins a lawsuit for something like 400k EUR, and is allowed to get a new job.

I have about 10 other cases of similar ideas where the employee pretty much screwed the company over even though the company bent over backwards for both parties to win.

112

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

[quote]UtahLama wrote:

[quote]Pj92x wrote:
I don’t know any corporation that has individual pay scales for their workforce apart from elite jobs.

[/quote]

I have never worked for a company that DID NOT have them.[/quote]

I can tell you without question is it the norm for people to be paid differently, even when they have the same title. The vast majority of private enterprise works like this. It is called incentive.

There is a reason talking about how much you get paid with coworkers is a fire-able offense. [/quote]

And it’s why a CFO of a Fortune 500 company who is male, is gonna make a shit load more than a female CFO of the hometown bank.

Why is this so hard to grasp?

113

[quote]Pj92x wrote:
Do you have evidence to show that output is the reason for pay difference? Where I work all managers make the same, all general managers amk the same, all basic manual labour workers make the same. Each group has a set pay. It is not output based, I don’t know any corporation that has individual pay scales for their workforce apart from elite jobs.

It is the elite and high paying jobs where women are paid less. Not kitchen workers and general managers.[/quote]

At every company I’ve worked at and every company I’ve audited, except the Government, every level and position has a pay scale range.

Government employees are based on years of service and pay level. And let me tell you, you get what you get there b/c there is no incentive outside of getting promoted.

114

[quote]ZJStrope wrote:

[quote]jbpick86 wrote:

[quote]Pj92x wrote:
Do you have evidence to show that output is the reason for pay difference? Where I work all managers make the same, all general managers amk the same, all basic manual labour workers make the same. Each group has a set pay. It is not output based, I don’t know any corporation that has individual pay scales for their workforce apart from elite jobs.

It is the elite and high paying jobs where women are paid less. Not kitchen workers and general managers.[/quote]

You serious?? Maybe at the elite level there are just more elite men because a much larger percent of men devote their lives to their work therefore there is a much larger pool to choose from. With women the pool is smaller because there are more women who choose to split time between career and domestic duties. So when there is a large pool vs a small pool, or course the large pool will create more elite. How are you not seeing this??[/quote]

Well, in his credit, he alluded to this idea when he states the structure we currently have in place inherently discriminates. I would argue it’s not discriminatory b/c, believe it or not, everyone is not equal.

That all being said, if you are from Europe, which is safe assumption, their laws are structured so that the workers have an advantage over the employers.

Case in point. One of the companies I worked for had an operation in France. An employee was sick or something for like 2 years. The company replaced this person; however, continued to pay the employee (based on law). When the employee came back, they had a job with similar pay as before, but not the exact same job because, you can’t function as a relatively small business without an employee. So this person quits stating the company forced her out, wins a lawsuit for something like 400k EUR, and is allowed to get a new job.

I have about 10 other cases of similar ideas where the employee pretty much screwed the company over even though the company bent over backwards for both parties to win.[/quote]

But how he is deducing that more men are in elite positions because more men put in the time and dedication to get there is discrimination is totally escaping me.

115

[quote]jbpick86 wrote:

But how he is deducing that more men are in elite positions because more men put in the time and dedication to get there is discrimination is totally escaping me.
[/quote]

As it should escape you, lol.

One part of the equation I don’t want to lose sight of, if these men have families they more than likely have a spouse that gave up his or her career to handle the majority of the home so that this man could advance his career to that level.

So, in all reality, that spouse invested in the man’s career just as much as the man did, and they just split the “work of life” in an effective and productive way.

Society just tends to forget to celebrate the spouse.

116

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

[quote]jbpick86 wrote:

But how he is deducing that more men are in elite positions because more men put in the time and dedication to get there is discrimination is totally escaping me.
[/quote]

As it should escape you, lol.

One part of the equation I don’t want to lose sight of, if these men have families they more than likely have a spouse that gave up his or her career to handle the majority of the home so that this man could advance his career to that level.

So, in all reality, that spouse invested in the man’s career just as much as the man did, and they just split the “work of life” in an effective and productive way.

Society just tends to forget to celebrate the spouse. [/quote]

Definitely. And you know better than most being in a Public Accounting career. Partners are rarely Partners without their significant other sacrificing quite a bit, especially when you have families.

117

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

[quote]Pj92x wrote:
fee markets lead to liberty is in my view something highly disproven. [/quote]

oh boy…

[/quote]

Isn’t that like disagreeing with the fact that liberty is liberty. Free market doesn’t lead to liberty, it is liberty as an economic model.

118

[quote]ZJStrope wrote:

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

[quote]jbpick86 wrote:

But how he is deducing that more men are in elite positions because more men put in the time and dedication to get there is discrimination is totally escaping me.
[/quote]

As it should escape you, lol.

One part of the equation I don’t want to lose sight of, if these men have families they more than likely have a spouse that gave up his or her career to handle the majority of the home so that this man could advance his career to that level.

So, in all reality, that spouse invested in the man’s career just as much as the man did, and they just split the “work of life” in an effective and productive way.

Society just tends to forget to celebrate the spouse. [/quote]

Definitely. And you know better than most being in a Public Accounting career. Partners are rarely Partners without their significant other sacrificing quite a bit, especially when you have families. [/quote]

100% agree. I almost brought this up myself earlier but confusion seemed thick enough ha. My wife (in her last semester of nursing school) and I are expecting a little girl in July and we are already discussing how much she wants to take on in the realm of her future career with a new baby. We both grew up as children of very involved stay at home moms and both would like that for our child also so we will see how this balance works out. She has expressed feeling some guilt for using the resources to put her through nursing school should elect not to use it for a full time position but I have tried to assure her that it is a non-issue with me.

119

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

[quote]Pj92x wrote:
fee markets lead to liberty is in my view something highly disproven. [/quote]

oh boy…

[/quote]

Isn’t that like disagreeing with the fact that liberty is liberty. Free market doesn’t lead to liberty, it is liberty as an economic model. [/quote]

That is one of the issues I have with that statement, yes.

And seeing as (ignoring the gray area in between that mixes the two) the alternative is the central planned market… And his response mentioned a practice long dead in America for close to 200 years, slavery, I just didn’t bother any further.

120

[quote]jbpick86 wrote:

[quote]ZJStrope wrote:

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

[quote]jbpick86 wrote:

But how he is deducing that more men are in elite positions because more men put in the time and dedication to get there is discrimination is totally escaping me.
[/quote]

As it should escape you, lol.

One part of the equation I don’t want to lose sight of, if these men have families they more than likely have a spouse that gave up his or her career to handle the majority of the home so that this man could advance his career to that level.

So, in all reality, that spouse invested in the man’s career just as much as the man did, and they just split the “work of life” in an effective and productive way.

Society just tends to forget to celebrate the spouse. [/quote]

Definitely. And you know better than most being in a Public Accounting career. Partners are rarely Partners without their significant other sacrificing quite a bit, especially when you have families. [/quote]

100% agree. I almost brought this up myself earlier but confusion seemed thick enough ha. My wife (in her last semester of nursing school) and I are expecting a little girl in July and we are already discussing how much she wants to take on in the realm of her future career with a new baby. We both grew up as children of very involved stay at home moms and both would like that for our child also so we will see how this balance works out. She has expressed feeling some guilt for using the resources to put her through nursing school should elect not to use it for a full time position but I have tried to assure her that it is a non-issue with me. [/quote]

My wife went back part time and it works out because we love her daycare woman, and my daughter loves her. Plus my daughter is very social, so spending that much time with just mom and dad drives her nutty.