America & Sexism

Originally posted by Oliver North
so you are saying, if women weren't in the work force, not only would more men be employed, but there would be more jobs overall even during an economic downturn?

no?

ok, then we agree

I agree that there is a disparity between males and females in the work force and education, currently, in the US. I also agree that it is better that we have as much gender equality as possible in the work force.

But I do not agree with the rhetorical question you just asked nor do I agree with its purpose.

That is not something you and I have argued for or against nor has anyone in this thread. In fact, "idiots and people who talk out their asses" did not make that point, either, regarding that topic. To quote one of the "idiots":

"...mixed-gender workforce doesn't guarantees economic prosperity. Several countries in Asia prove this. Decent economic policies actually guarantee "economic prosperity." For example: Empowering private sector. Once again, economic prosperity is not gender-dependent phenomenon.

A patriarchal society can also economically prosper. How is this possible? Because in such a society majority of men will be employed, earning a lot, capable of maintaining households and afford luxuries on their own, create new businesses..."

Do you disagree?

To continue with the discussion: do you think that evening out the gender ratios in the work place, in those "patriarchal societies", adds more overall earned income (median income or average income) to those people?

I don't necessarily understand why smugness is a negative quality?

like, sure, its not "nice", but so what? I'm confident in my own beliefs and really don't feel like I should have to give credence to people who clearly haven't put a fraction of the effort necessary to have an informed opinion into a topic.

Calling stupid opinions or people stupid might not be the best way to make friends, but if the shoe fits...

Originally posted by dadudemon
I agree that there is a disparity between males and females in the work force and education, currently, in the US. I also agree that it is better that we have as much gender equality as possible in the work force.

I AM NOT TALKING ABOUT DISPARITY BETWEEN GENDERS, I AM TALKING ABOUT THE FACT THAT ARBITRARILY REMOVING 50% OF A POPULATION FROM THE WORK FORCE PRODUCES A LESS PRODUCTIVE ECONOMY THAN ONE WHICH INCLUDES THE OTHER 50%

literally, unless you are suggesting that removing women from the work force would produce a more prosperous economy, we have no disagreement, how do you not see this?

Originally posted by dadudemon
"...mixed-gender workforce doesn't guarantees economic prosperity. Several countries in Asia prove this. Decent economic policies actually guarantee "economic prosperity." For example: Empowering private sector.

excepting, of course, that in South Asia especially (and Africa), the only sure-fire way to reduce poverty in poor communities is to give women more power in the economy...

/ffs

Originally posted by dadudemon
To continue with the discussion: do you think that evening out the gender ratios in the work place, in those "patriarchal societies", adds more overall earned income (median income or average income) to those people?

An increase in total workers has the same effect whether those people are male or female. You accept that more people working is good for the economy. Women are people. I'm not sure why this is so difficult to grasp. This isn't exactly news, women are actually literally people.

Originally posted by Omega Vision
DDD has a lot more sympathy for idiots and people who talk out their asses than most folks.

Never change, Dadudemon.

I have yet to see where he's made some serious flaws regarding macroeconomics. The closest he's come to "ignorance" is the oversimplification of business management...but it was more for a point of discussion and not to "flex" his knowledge.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Not when they're responses to other people's over-the-top smug posts, no.

I thought I read every page in this thread (but have no urge to go back and read it again). If he was smug to you, prior, my apologies. All I saw was smug post after smug post. Everything was dismissive and rude, from what I could see.

Originally posted by Oliver North
I don't necessarily understand why smugness is a negative quality?

like, sure, its not "nice", but so what? I'm confident in my own beliefs and really don't feel like I should have to give credence to people who clearly haven't put a fraction of the effort necessary to have an informed opinion into a topic.

Calling stupid opinions or people stupid might not be the best way to make friends, but if the shoe fits...

As I pointed out, the same smug approach can be taken towards some of the points you made despite the fact that you and I both know you are not actually an ignorant fool when it comes to macroeconomics. Like I said to Omega, I didn't see this stupidity/idiocy/ignorance that you others are seeing from his question.

If you have no interest in discussion (not necessarily with me, but with anyone) because you already know everything, then way participate in the thread or threads like it? Just to be smug to the plebs? I guess that is fun if you like to troll forums but you yourself said earlier in the thread that you have a history of not doing that. I think we're off topic. Just forget about it. I just get whiny about the "smarter than you and you're dumb" attitude expressed to other posters. Obviously, it's ugly.

Originally posted by dadudemon
I thought I read every page in this thread (but have no urge to go back and read it again). If he was smug to you, prior, my apologies. All I saw was smug post after smug post. Everything was dismissive and rude, from what I could see.

When a person admits that they know nothing about a topic, says they wish to know nothing about a topic, and then continue to make claims about the topic they're being quite smug.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
An increase in total workers has the same effect whether those people are male or female. You accept that more people working is good for the economy. Women are people. I'm not sure why this is so difficult to grasp. This isn't exactly news, women are actually literally people.

AHA! That's not the point being made or asked.

You added information to that question/system: you assumed there would be a net total increase in jobs with this evening out of genders in the work place.

From whence commeth this assumption? Why did you add that assumption? How can you be sure another assumption is not more correct than your own?

Originally posted by dadudemon
you assumed there would be a net total increase in jobs with this evening out of genders in the work place.

Nope 🙂

Originally posted by dadudemon
As I pointed out, the same smug approach can be taken towards some of the points you made despite the fact that you and I both know you are not actually an ignorant fool when it comes to macroeconomics.

I'm also a mature adult who can converse on the internet without getting offended by slight insults...

if you are offended, leave or grow a thicker skin, it is the internet...

Originally posted by dadudemon
If you have no interest in discussion (not necessarily with me, but with anyone) because you already know everything, then way participate in the thread or threads like it? Just to be smug to the plebs?

I really don't think I have to justify what I do in my free time to you. There is an ignore function if I'm being too mean for your sensibilities, if the mods think I'm trolling too much, they will let me know.

Originally posted by dadudemon
You added information to that question/system: you assumed there would be a net total increase in jobs with this evening out of genders in the work place.

given every other variable is held static, how couldn't the increase in wealth, and demand, not produce more jobs. see: two income households.

you are right DDM, regardless of gender equality, a recession will reduce jobs

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
An increase in total workers has the same effect whether those people are male or female. You accept that more people working is good for the economy. Women are people. I'm not sure why this is so difficult to grasp. This isn't exactly news, women are actually literally people.

Does it not depend on the field? Or are we just talking in a very general, broad sense?

Originally posted by Oliver North
[b]I AM NOT TALKING ABOUT DISPARITY BETWEEN GENDERS, I AM TALKING ABOUT THE FACT THAT ARBITRARILY REMOVING 50% OF A POPULATION FROM THE WORK FORCE PRODUCES A LESS PRODUCTIVE ECONOMY THAN ONE WHICH INCLUDES THE OTHER 50%

literally, unless you are suggesting that removing women from the work force would produce a more prosperous economy, we have no disagreement, how do you not see this?[/B]

Dude...calm down.

I AM NOT TALKING ABOUT ADDING 50% MORE PEOPLE TO THE WORK FORCE OR REMOVING 50% MORE PEOPLE FROM THE WORK FORCE. I ALSO MENTIONED THAT IT IS IRRELEVANT TO EVEN DISCUSS REMOVING 50% OF THE WORK FORCE IN THE CONTEXT OF THIS DISCUSSION.

I asked a question that was much more on topic than removing or adding 50% of the work force.

Originally posted by Oliver North
excepting, of course, that in South Asia especially (and Africa), the only sure-fire way to reduce poverty in poor communities is to give women more power in the economy...

/ffs

The best way to show you did not understand a point is to think of an extreme exception to that point that was obviously not in the point maker's considered information.

Also, in the point you just made, there, what is actually happening? What are you really doing when you give the women more power? Is it really gender specific or are there other variables at play that coincides with the fact that women being given power can sometimes improve local economies?

look up microfinance...

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Nope 🙂

You did. If you did not quote my post then you would have a point, here. But you quoted my post so you have to stick to the context of my post. You added information to that question in order to state what you did.

Where did you get that more net jobs would be added?

Originally posted by Oliver North
I'm also a mature adult who can converse on the internet without getting offended by slight insults...

if you are offended, leave or grow a thicker skin, it is the internet...

This is coming from the person that gets so irritated with people that he deems ignorant, stupid, or having stupid opinions, that he dismisses people and throws petty insults at them. Do I really need to take this advice or should you yourself take this advice?

Originally posted by Oliver North
I really don't think I have to justify what I do in my free time to you. There is an ignore function if I'm being too mean for your sensibilities, if the mods think I'm trolling too much, they will let me know.

You completely avoided the question, cap. 😉 You don't answer to me nor do you have to justify yourself. You indulged this path of the conversation and even stated how you "roll", so I was just curious as to why you would even participate if there are just so many dumb plebs posting. You could have said something like, "Meh, it passes the time." Or, "I have a personal issue with his poisonous ideas tainting the minds of other people."

I don't care, anymore. Who does care?

Originally posted by Oliver North
look up microfinance...

That fact that anyone can study economics for about a week and be more knowledgeable than any of us in the thread points to why I think there is still relevant discussion to be had.

Originally posted by dadudemon
This is coming from the person that gets so irritated with people that he deems ignorant, stupid, or having stupid opinions, that he dismisses people and throws petty insults at them. Do I really need to take this advice or should you yourself take this advice?

if you have issues with me calling people I feel are stupid such, there are both ignore and report functions the site provides for you

Originally posted by Oliver North
given every other variable is held static, how couldn't the increase in wealth, and demand, not produce more jobs. see: two income households.

This still assumes something that needs to be discussed: why do you all assume, of my question, that the net jobs would increase rather than stay static or decrease? Why are you making this assumption regarding the question? No where did I state or say we are "adding" more jobs: only that we are evening out the genders.

Originally posted by Oliver North
you are right DDM, regardless of gender equality, a recession will reduce jobs

That's not the point I am discussing, anymore. That much is clear. However, one could say that a recession impacts one gender more than another.

"Today", it shows the unemployment rate is 7.7 for men and 7.3 for women.

http://www.bls.gov/news.release/archives/empsit_06072013.pdf

But 2006 shows adult women had a higher unemployment rate than men: 4.2 vs 4.0

http://www.bls.gov/news.release/archives/empsit_01052007.pdf

So, obviously, something changed and from the projections, this gap is going to continue to widen.

So this recession really did hit the genders significantly differently in the US.

Originally posted by Oliver North
if you have issues with me calling people I feel are stupid such, there are both ignore and report functions the site provides for you

Why do you assume that those "issues" would have cause for me to put you on ignore? It seems that you are in more need to place me on ignore than I you. If you have an issue of me asking why you're being absurdly smug, there are ignore and report functions on the site for you to employ (pun).

Originally posted by -Pr-
Does it not depend on the field? Or are we just talking in a very general, broad sense?

When people work they make money.
When people make money they spend money.
That spent money goes to people who are working in other jobs.
Those people then spend their money.
This economic action is what drives the economy.

However economies are even better than this because at various stages things can be created that are more valuable than the sum of their parts. New jobs are created as businesses work to match demand. This is how an economy grows. There is not a set amount of wealth. There is not a set amount of jobs.

At times, of course, economies will contract however growing economy can absorb new workers and those people will help to expand the economy further. They drive the creation of wealth both by creating it and by creating demand for it. Indeed some economists argue that loss of jobs in one sector will create jobs in other sectors.

Because of this feedback loop it is good to have many people employed. Indeed regardless of race, creed, hair color, weight, shoe size, age, eye color, or flavor of furry fetish we'd like to have as many people employed as possible. The MLP fetishists don't take jobs from the Sonic fetishists, both of them benefit the economy by working.

Imagine it this way: If you randomly removed half the people in America from the work force that wouldn't be a good thing for the economy. 50% unemployment would be terrible news!

So, since women are people, we can go back to those places where we said "workers" or "people" and replace them with men or womwn interchangeably. If we assume that people benefit from living in a nation with a productive economy then we can say that "women benefit from more women working" or "men benefit from more women working" or even "women benefit from more men working". Here we are speaking in absolute terms, not relative ones.

Now it may be that the MLP fetishists tend to go into economic and the Sonic fetishists tend to go into construction but in general we'd say its a good sign when their numbers begin to even out between professions. Employers have essentially access to a large random portion of qualified applicants. Since half the population wanks to MLP and half wanks to Sonic seeing an even distribution is a reasonable sign that both fetish groups are part of the job pool now. We want the Sonic fetishists helping out the economy! We want the MLP fetishists helping out to! There's no economic conflict between them.

Yeah, ya'll just got a fur fetish knowledge bomb dropped on you 😐

Thundercats represent.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
When people work they make money.
When people make money they spend money.
That spent money goes to people who are working in other jobs.
Those people then spend their money.
This economic action is what drives the economy.

However economies are even better than this because at various stages things can be created that are more valuable than the sum of their parts. New jobs are created as businesses work to match demand. This is how an economy grows. There is not a set amount of wealth. There is not a set amount of jobs.

At times, of course, economies will contract however growing economy can absorb new workers and those people will help to expand the economy further. They drive the creation of wealth both by creating it and by creating demand for it. Indeed some economists argue that loss of jobs in one sector will create jobs in other sectors.

Because of this feedback loop it is good to have many people employed. Indeed regardless of race, creed, hair color, weight, shoe size, age, eye color, or flavor of furry fetish we'd like to have as many people employed as possible. The MLP fetishists don't take jobs from the Sonic fetishists, both of them benefit the economy by working.

Imagine it this way: If you randomly removed half the people in America from the work force that wouldn't be a good thing for the economy. 50% unemployment would be terrible news!

So, since women are people, we can go back to those places where we said "workers" or "people" and replace them with men or womwn interchangeably. If we assume that people benefit from living in a nation with a productive economy then we can say that "women benefit from more women working" or "men benefit from more women working" or even "women benefit from more men working". Here we are speaking in absolute terms, not relative ones.

Now it may be that the MLP fetishists tend to go into economic and the Sonic fetishists tend to go into construction but in general we'd say its a good sign when their numbers begin to even out between professions. Employers have essentially access to a large random portion of qualified applicants. Since half the population wanks to MLP and half wanks to Sonic seeing an even distribution is a reasonable sign that both fetish groups are part of the job pool now. We want the Sonic fetishists helping out the economy! We want the MLP fetishists helping out to! There's no economic conflict between them.

Not technically what I was asking about, but I still laughed, so thank you.