but the fact is if women would do the same work for less, why would anybody hire men? — stoicHoneyBadger

Cause of the stereotypes you support. Cause still many think that women can't do the same work as good as men. Plus pregnancy.

You can believe in lots of things that defy logic and reason, — stoicHoneyBadger

Logic says to just check the facts on your own and see the numbers. From numerous valiable institutes. Then you can decide if it's a myth or not.

Cause of the stereotypes you support. Cause still many think that women can't do the same work as good as men. Plus pregnancy. — dimosthenis9

You might want to read about my concept theory https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/12754/my-theory-of-concepts-belief-systems/p1
as you seem to be indoctrinated into fringe leftist believes that you are unable to evaluate critically.

No I don't want. For that reason at least. I have checked the numbers. You haven't. And apparently you are unwilling to do it. So fine . it's your "theory" vs numerous researches. You decide which is more reliable.

That has nothing to do with leftists as you keep mentioning. I am not even leftist. But I didn't care to state it to you.Found it pointless, till now as to show how imprisoned by your own stereotypes you are. You think everyone who supports equality must be leftist.

I'd say everybody who sees imaginable problems, misdiagnoses the situation and applies a remedy that makes things worse, has some introspection to do. ;) be it in terms of quality, antiracism, blm, climate change and other such bunk.

to be honest, righties also doing it with their 'freedom of speech', war on drugs, but still to a much lesser scale.

I'd say everybody who sees imaginable problems, misdiagnoses the situation and applies a remedy that makes things worse, has some introspection to do. ;) be it in terms of quality, antiracism, blm, climate change and other such bunk.

to be honest, righties also doing it with their 'freedom of speech', war on drugs, but still to a much lesser scale. — stoicHoneyBadger

I don't understand what imaginable problems have to do with what we were discussing here but anyway.

Looking at those issue critically, they do seem imaginary.

Just check the numbers. If you want to sound so sure and "confident" about your opinions and "theory", at least don't be lazy. It's just facts.

Where did you check them, in a feminist journal. :D

... and here the story ends. Bye.

why would anybody hire men? — stoicHoneyBadger

No (paid) maternity leaves?

No (paid) maternity leaves? — Agent Smith

So men cost less than women? :) you guys make up your minds, who get less.

So men cost less than women? :) you guys make up your minds, who get less. — stoicHoneyBadger

You hadta ask. :smile:

Looking at those issue critically, they do seem imaginary. — stoicHoneyBadger

So climate change.

• The planet's average surface temperature has risen about 2 degrees Fahrenheit (1 degrees Celsius) since the late 19th century, a change driven largely by increased carbon dioxide emissions into the atmosphere and other human activities. Most of the warming occurred in the past 40 years, with the seven most recent years being the warmest. The years 2016 and 2020 are tied for the warmest year on record.
  
  
• The ocean has absorbed much of this increased heat, with the top 100 meters (about 328 feet) of ocean showing warming of more than 0.6 degrees Fahrenheit (0.33 degrees Celsius) since 1969. Earth stores 90% of the extra energy in the ocean.
  
  
• The Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets have decreased in mass. Data from NASA's Gravity Recovery and Climate Experiment show Greenland lost an average of 279 billion tons of ice per year between 1993 and 2019, while Antarctica lost about 148 billion tons of ice per year.
  
  
• Glaciers are retreating almost everywhere around the world — including in the Alps, Himalayas, Andes, Rockies, Alaska, and Africa.
  
  
• Satellite observations reveal that the amount of spring snow cover in the Northern Hemisphere has decreased over the past five decades and the snow is melting earlier.
  
  
• Global sea level rose about 8 inches (20 centimeters) in the last century. The rate in the last two decades, however, is nearly double that of the last century and accelerating slightly every year.
  
  
• Both the extent and thickness of Arctic sea ice has declined rapidly over the last several decades.
  
  
• The number of record high temperature events in the United States has been increasing, while the number of record low temperature events has been decreasing, since 1950. The U.S. has also witnessed increasing numbers of intense rainfall events.
  
  
• Since the beginning of the Industrial Revolution, the acidity of surface ocean waters has increased by about 30%. This increase is the result of humans emitting more carbon dioxide into the atmosphere and hence more being absorbed into the ocean. The ocean has absorbed between 20% and 30% of total anthropogenic carbon dioxide emissions in recent decades (7.2 to 10.8 billion metric tons per year).

What’s your critical analysis of this evidence?

Imagine you go to your doctor, he looks at your bloodwork and say "Hmm, I see parameter X was 100 last year, but now it is 105..." what would you ask him?

Me: So I’m pre-diabetic now?

Doctor: Yes

Me: Do I need to change my eating habits in order to avoid diabetes and die?

Doctor: Yes

Me: For how long?

Doctor: The rest of your life.

No, you would start by asking - what should this parameter be. what is the normal range. and if the doctor can not give an evidence-based answer, you might want to get a second opinion.

So, what is the optimal temperature range for the earth and how did you measure it?
What is the optimal co2 level and how did you measure it?
What is the optimal greenhouse effect in general? How is it even measured?

And when you start asking those questions, you pretty quickly understand that all this is pseudoscience - they came up with a theory that would help "rearrange" the energy market, scare gullible voters, etc. and they shoe-horn random data to support it. Like it is getting warmer - climate change. Colder - climate change. Windy? D'oh! Of course climate change! Can you even falsify it?

Necessity. Most people are paid less than the value they produce for their employer. They work for less than they are worth under sometimes very poor conditions because there is no alternative. This applies to both men and women,

There were periods when many women did not work for wages, particularly before the Industrial revolution. Since many women (as well as men) have worked under similar conditions for relatively low pay. After WWII, many women did not work for wages (at least in the US). Returning soldiers resumed their jobs in industry and women were thus displaced. Women were expected to raise children at home. That was a workable arrangement during a period of wage growth and a booming economy. Towards the beginning of the 1970s, the economy changed. Wages started stagnating and was accompanied by inflation ("stag-flation"). In order for families to maintain their previous level of consumption (along with children's college expenses, etc.) women had to return to work, whether they received equal pay or not.

In the US, wages have not grown significantly for most workers since 1973. This is part of the deliberate redistribution of wealth from the working classes to the plutocracy.

You can believe in lots of things that defy logic and reason, even in man made climate emergency, but the fact is if women would do the same work for less, why would anybody hire men? — stoicHoneyBadger

The wage gap between men and women has been very well documented across all sorts of job categories. I have little sympathy for women at the top of the wage pyramid; if over-paid female execs are making 10% less than their over-paid male counterparts, tough shit. Men and women at the bottom of the pyramid, on the other hand, have all the reasons under the sun to be unhappy with wage structures.

What is the optimal co2 level and how did you measure it? — stoicHoneyBadger

The optimal CO2 level was what it was for about 4 million years before 1875 (to pick a quarter century year--280 ppm. By 1875, fossil fuel consumption was beginning to raise the level of CO2 in the atmosphere. By the first quarter of the 20th century, we can see (in retrospect) that climate change was beginning,

Measuring the quantity of various gasses in the atmosphere is a straight-forward quantitative chemistry procedure.

An optimal temperature for human civilization is one where climate and weather are reasonably stable--about 280 ppm CO2. Added heat in the atmosphere (along with added water vapor) destabilizes both climate and weather, such that weather (and climate) become increasingly chaotic and unreliable. This is particularly important for food production. We are currently at 412 ppm and rising.

Look: I get that you are a conservative and you

— Bitter Crank

do not like a lot of the social changes you see happening around you. A lot of people, conservative and liberal alike, do not like what they see going on. Conservatives and liberals alike are worried about various pieces of social, political, and climate change. You do not have to LIKE the changes you see going on, but denying their existence doesn't serve you well. Fore warned is fore armed, and that can't happen if you disbelieve what is going on plainly in front of you.

No, you would start by asking - what should this parameter be. what is the normal range. — stoicHoneyBadger

Me: What is a healthy fasting plasma glucose level?

Doctor: Below 99 mg/dl.

Me: What evidence do you have to support your claim that I'm pre-diabetic?

Doctor: The fasting plasma glucose test that you took yesterday showing 105 mg/dl.

Me: Poppycock! You clearly want to "rearrange" the health market by scaring patients and shoe-horning random data.

Doctor: Have you ever taken antipsychotic drugs?

Me: Why do you ask?

Doctor: No reason.

You do not have to LIKE the changes you see going on, but denying their existence doesn't serve you well. — Bitter Crank

True. Though if someone doesn't like THAT kind of changes then that says a lot about the "human quality" of that someone.

You might wants to re-read what I wrote. — stoicHoneyBadger

You might want to re-read what I wrote, that I could not understand what you tried to say. Or maybe just try to write so that people can understand it.

As to your question, not so many women are employed because a bunch of bigots think that women should stay at home and that they do not get the education or training needed because it is not offered to women by the same bigots.

Most people are paid less than the value they produce for their employer. They work for less than they are worth under sometimes very poor conditions because there is no alternative — Bitter Crank

Of course, nobody would create jobs if they won't get a profit out of it.

The wage gap between men and women has been very well documented across all sorts of job categories. — Bitter Crank

So wage gap or for the same job? maybe men just work longer hours to support their families, so that their wives can stay at home with the kids? yet blue-haired feminists are spinning it around, presenting it as something bad.

An optimal temperature for human civilization is one where climate and weather are reasonably stable--about 280 ppm CO2. Added heat in the atmosphere (along with added water vapor) destabilizes both climate and weather, such that weather (and climate) become increasingly chaotic and unreliable. This is particularly important for food production. We are currently at 412 ppm and rising. — Bitter Crank

I don't see a scientific bases for such outlook.
Why do you assume 280ppm is optimal? why not 1280, for example? for food production we know the optimal level is 1000-2000ppm.
I do not see an excess "weather events" in comparison to the early 1900s.
Moreover, there are certainly benefits of a mild warming ( less people die of cold exposure, lower heating bills, etc. ) and increase in co2 ( larger crop yields, greening of deserts, etc. ), while the downsides seem to be exaggerated.

Me: What is a healthy fasting plasma glucose level? — praxis

How does the doctor know a healthy fasting pgl? from the scientific method, i.e. lots healthy & not healthy people were tested. can you say the same about climate? ;)

As to your question, not so many women are employed because a bunch of bigots think that women should stay at home and that they do not get the education or training needed because it is not offered to women by the same bigots. — Sir2u

Let me guess, you're in some sort of a lesbian dance therapy studies at USLA? )

So wage gap or for the same job? — stoicHoneyBadger

Yes, wage differences are found for specific equally qualified men and women, putting in equal numbers of hours, effort, achievement, etc. Granted, the wage gap figures used in citations are averages, and sometimes averages of very large data sets. One should assume that some specific equally qualified women are being paid more than some men for equivalent jobs.

Individual factors result in variable wage results. I am a male with a graduate degree. I never achieved the expected wage levels that I normally would have because of job choices that I made, lack of ambition, dropping out of the workforce for short periods of time, and pursuing diverse personal goals. I'm not complaining; people who achieve high wages generally are very focused on job performance.

I don't see a scientific bases for such outlook. — stoicHoneyBadger

I don't know any thing about you. Maybe you lack enough education to understand the science. Maybe you are looking at the world through paleo-conservative colored glasses. Maybe you have your head up your ass -- I don't know. It takes a fair amount of bone-headed stupidity to say ask "Why do you assume 280ppm is optimal? why not 1280, for example?"

"Why do you assume 280ppm is optimal? why not 1280, for example?" — Bitter Crank

So you can not give a science-based answer to this question? Only do ad hominem attacks?

In your particular case, "head up ass" is eminently scientific.

I understand you feel like an average Russian, who was told for his entire like that Russia is a superpower, but now their flagship was promoted to continue the mission as a submarine. :D i.e. all his axioms are questioned, so at first is anger, than bargaining...

How does the doctor know a healthy fasting pgl? from the scientific method, i.e. lots healthy & not healthy people were tested. can you say the same about climate? ;) — stoicHoneyBadger

Why do you assume 280ppm is optimal? why not 1280, for example? — stoicHoneyBadger

Just looking at co2 levels and the human body and ignoring all other global consequences, levels above 1000 ppm are known to be unhealthy. Like a doctor informing you of an unhealthy high glucose level you can choose to ignore the warning and continue your unhealthy lifestyle, and that’s what most people probably do.

when you start asking those questions, you pretty quickly understand that all this is pseudoscience - they came up with a theory that would help "rearrange" the energy market, scare gullible voters, etc. and they shoe-horn random data to support it. — stoicHoneyBadger

So this is your reasoned analysis? “They” came up with a theory to rearrange the energy market? Who is they? And why would they want to rearrange the energy market? What does “shoe-horn random data” even mean? I get the gist of it but it just sounds like a stupid insult that is impossible to substantiate in any reasonable way.