Income By Gender Compared to GDP Per Capita
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
March 29, 2024, 02:07:03 AM
News: Election Simulator 2.0 Released. Senate/Gubernatorial maps, proportional electoral votes, and more - Read more

  Talk Elections
  General Politics
  Economics (Moderator: Torie)
  Income By Gender Compared to GDP Per Capita
« previous next »
Pages: [1]
Author Topic: Income By Gender Compared to GDP Per Capita  (Read 1719 times)
phk
phknrocket1k
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 12,906


Political Matrix
E: 1.42, S: -1.22

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« on: June 08, 2011, 05:46:03 PM »





Logged
King
intermoderate
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 29,357
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #1 on: June 08, 2011, 10:03:56 PM »

Does this median female income take all homemakers and count them as 0s or just excluded non-workers?
Logged
Gustaf
Moderators
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 29,770


Political Matrix
E: 0.39, S: -0.70

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #2 on: June 10, 2011, 03:08:16 AM »

Isn't this likely because men have been doing less market work and women more market work since about 1970 or so?
Logged
opebo
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 47,010


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #3 on: June 10, 2011, 04:50:30 AM »

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.  
Logged
CitizenX
Rookie
**
Posts: 186
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #4 on: June 13, 2011, 05:18:40 AM »

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

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.
Logged
Gustaf
Moderators
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 29,770


Political Matrix
E: 0.39, S: -0.70

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #5 on: June 13, 2011, 08:42:49 AM »

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.  

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?
Logged
Gustaf
Moderators
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 29,770


Political Matrix
E: 0.39, S: -0.70

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #6 on: June 13, 2011, 08:43:28 AM »

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

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.

You seem to need more information about how to read graphs, because you're not making much sense, I'm afraid.
Logged
Filuwaúrdjan
Realpolitik
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 67,609
United Kingdom


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #7 on: June 13, 2011, 10:41:30 AM »

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

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.
Logged
opebo
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 47,010


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #8 on: June 13, 2011, 12:55:05 PM »

The destructive nature of neo-liberalism causes a divergence between female and male wages? 

No, dum-dum, it is a convergence which is occurring.
Logged
CitizenX
Rookie
**
Posts: 186
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #9 on: June 14, 2011, 06:11:10 PM »

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

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.

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

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.
Logged
Gustaf
Moderators
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 29,770


Political Matrix
E: 0.39, S: -0.70

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #10 on: June 15, 2011, 12:15:34 PM »

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

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.

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

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.
Logged
Gustaf
Moderators
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 29,770


Political Matrix
E: 0.39, S: -0.70

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #11 on: June 15, 2011, 12:18:15 PM »

The destructive nature of neo-liberalism causes a divergence between female and male wages? 

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

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.
Logged
Gustaf
Moderators
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 29,770


Political Matrix
E: 0.39, S: -0.70

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #12 on: June 15, 2011, 12:20:33 PM »

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

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.

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. 
Logged
opebo
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 47,010


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #13 on: June 15, 2011, 01:05:52 PM »

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.

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.
Logged
Gustaf
Moderators
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 29,770


Political Matrix
E: 0.39, S: -0.70

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #14 on: June 15, 2011, 01:36:55 PM »

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.

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?
Logged
opebo
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 47,010


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #15 on: June 15, 2011, 03:15:16 PM »

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.
Logged
Gustaf
Moderators
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 29,770


Political Matrix
E: 0.39, S: -0.70

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #16 on: June 16, 2011, 10:00:04 AM »

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?)
Logged
opebo
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 47,010


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #17 on: June 16, 2011, 12:06:18 PM »
« Edited: June 16, 2011, 12:09:45 PM by opebo »

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.

Logged
Gustaf
Moderators
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 29,770


Political Matrix
E: 0.39, S: -0.70

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #18 on: June 16, 2011, 01:42:03 PM »

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?
Logged
opebo
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 47,010


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #19 on: June 16, 2011, 01:59:27 PM »

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

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

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

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. 
Logged
Pages: [1]  
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Terms of Service - DMCA Agent and Policy - Privacy Policy and Cookies

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines

Page created in 0.057 seconds with 12 queries.