Talk Elections

()

()

Does this median female income take all homemakers and count them as 0s or just excluded non-workers?

Isn't this likely because men have been doing less market work and women more market work since about 1970 or so?

While that could be a factor, the bulk of this change is probably due to the overall lowering of wages caused by globalization, de-unionization, de-industrialization, etc. - the destructive nature of neo-liberalism.  

Well we don't know what the units are on the Y-axis so I don't know how we can compare the two graphs together.  Median income for women grew from basically nil, so their graph is going to look a lot nicer.

Secondly women do NOT make more money than men.  So knowing that I can't figure out what the y axis units are in absolute terms let alone compare them.

We need more information.

The destructive nature of neo-liberalism causes a divergence between female and male wages? Are you trying to combine your dislike for social mobility with your dislike for women into a grand conspiracy or am I missing something?

You seem to need more information about how to read graphs, because you're not making much sense, I'm afraid.

I think you need to add on a couple of details onto that (so the switch a more service-orientated economy with the subsequent evaporation of a large number of well-paid jobs for working class men), but, yeah, I'd think so as well.

No, dum-dum, it is a convergence which is occurring.

Just because you can't comprehend my question doesn't mean there is a problem with me.

The y-axis is on both graphs is calculated from different base units.  Therefor there is only so much comparison that you can do between the two.  Someone with an analytical mind would immediately notice this problem and ask for more data.

That is irrelevant to the point of the graph and thus no more data is needed.

They're diverging in their trend, which is what's causing the convergence in levels. But I'll admit I didn't phrase that very well.

Regardless, the destructive nature of neo-liberalism causes a convergence between female and male wages? You're free to answer the question now that I rephrased it.

Oh, and since I'm not as sensitive as you are I will refrain from reporting you calling me dum-dum.

That's true as well. Although I sort of thought about that as part of what I was talking about (since it would presumably lead to more women going out to work and men working less in general). But it makes sense to dis-aggregate those effects regardless. 

Very tolerant and commendable!  I will try to live up to your consideration.

No, the way you rephrased is accurate.  Neo-liberalism has replaced 'more expensive' workers (workers with political power) with less-powerful (and thus 'less expensive') workers - namely women and workers from developing countries.  While we are all loath to say anything negative about the supposed rise of the womenfolk and the third-worlders, the net effect is a that we now have a greater pool of less-well-protected workers (more workers, but they all have less power).  Aside from this negative aspect for workers, the associated massive deflation, undermining of demand, and oversupply are all very severe economic factors, and all of which have contributed to our current plight.

So...you're saying that there has been a redistribution where the poor (women and workers from developing countries) have had their wages converge to those of men, leading to greater income equality? I thought that was what you liked?

No, the same process greatly increased inequality by increasing the profits (privileges) of the owners.

But it increased equality among the vast mass of toilers, correct? I mean, why should we care about what happens with the distant elite (that I thought you liked anyway, or is that only if they inherit their position and have it inscribed in the constitution?)

No, it is reasonable to be concerned about the elite, not about one's position relative to one's fellow toilers.  

It is almost precisely analogous to the old story about the bear - two men are running away from the bear, so there are two ways to survive - try to kill the bear, or try to outrun the other man.  The ruling class is the bear, and we may feel happy when we see someone else being eaten instead of us, but the catch is this bear never stops eating, and there is no escape.

()

So, why do you think an absolute monarchy propped up by an aristocracy is the ultimate system?

And I'm still confused as to why wage increases for the poorest people is a bad thing here. Is it only because they are women and non-white?

Isn't it obvious?  Anyway the reasons have nothing to do with economics. 


Obviously their gender or race has no bearing, Gustaf.  The wage 'increases' of which you speak are a tiny part of a larger process which is a cementing of power by the owner - Neo-Liberal Globalization.