tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2473166537823294555.post7457640329118094141..comments2023-11-02T06:04:23.552-04:00Comments on Back to the Drawing Board: Walter Block on Sexism: Straddling the Line Between Thin Libertarianism and Vulgar LibertarianismDannyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14933199894935324897noreply@blogger.comBlogger7125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2473166537823294555.post-53841218721558401442017-01-22T22:55:54.300-05:002017-01-22T22:55:54.300-05:00Qualitatively I'd make a entirely different ar...Qualitatively I'd make a entirely different argument as to whether women should be discriminated against, women are more suited as mothers and wives therefore they should be encouraged to pursue that lifestyle choice. In order to prevent women from becoming unhappy by foregoing having children to pursue careers, it would be beneficial to society both ways for women to be encouraged not to work & instead help the next generation grow into healthy strong people. Women tend to be suited to supportive roles, nurturing and growing the culture/religion and social welfare of others, which is degrading over time as more women opt out of that role BECAUSE the govt refuses to reduce taxes/regulations. Instead we have more capitalists lobbying to increase barriers to entry in various industries to make up for the fact that there lots of businesses dropping prices (ie maximising profits and minimizing costs) COMPETING with and taking the customers from the innovative capitalists within established industries. <br /><br />Those capitalists that used to have a big role in pioneering their trade, bringing new ideas to the table are being phased out of many industries because it becomes mainly about the bottom dollar. Why keep buying Bagels (puff pastry), cheap manufactured goods like clothes or hardware from the leading investors/innovators when you got ten thousand other companies (domestic and foreign) that can do it cheaper now? That incentivizes those former ruling capitalist elite (most of the richest ones are jews, international bankers or foreign MNC owners) to lobby and influence (in many cases write up) new regulations and taxes that bring huge barriers to entry in those industries in order to artificially obtain excuses to NOT raise the wages of their employees, since there would be much less competition under this Corporatism based social "democratic" society. The fucking fascists where right. Leaving democracy and capitalism to "do its thing" results in heavily corrupt system that serves the unelected elite who will over time create more excuses to not pay fair wages by lobbying for open borders so that they can hire mostly cheap migrant workers (who also accept worse working conditions) as opposed to native workers... EVEN for IT work!<br /><br />TheUnbeholdenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08682717979160234451noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2473166537823294555.post-80597408543506590352017-01-22T22:40:03.295-05:002017-01-22T22:40:03.295-05:00Women get paid less because they WORK LESS (ie les...Women get paid less because they WORK LESS (ie less over time and less hours overall) and decide to take more time off, because of children or social/cultural reasons, and they tend to work in fields where they have less suitable educational attainment (ie having social science degrees) than the men do (STEM, management, political science). When you factor in both the differences in time spent working & educational attainment then the actual difference in wages is quite minor at about 8-10% less wages which can be explained (reasonable) as being simply less productive than males.<br />TheUnbeholdenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08682717979160234451noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2473166537823294555.post-68347723293325679472017-01-22T22:37:56.226-05:002017-01-22T22:37:56.226-05:00This comment has been removed by the author.TheUnbeholdenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08682717979160234451noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2473166537823294555.post-47585944207867931142009-05-12T09:43:00.000-04:002009-05-12T09:43:00.000-04:00I can think of three lines of response:
First, Lo...I can think of three lines of response:<br /><br />First, Long would probably want to point to entrenched power structures in society as the source of his objection. In a Marxian paradise, there would be no reason for concern. But in our current society, our productive relationships have a serious impact on our wellbeing. That makes "Why don't they just start their own business" kind of a weak argument. Why don't the managers just stop being jerks? <br /><br />Second, it's not like Long is accusing shareholders of using their businesses to satisfy their prejudiced consumption desires; he's accusing the agents of the shareholders for being prejudiced in a way that makes them do their jobs ineffectively. And if he's right about that, then they're <I>not</I> serving the interests of the business' owners. Accordingly, it's perfectly consistent with the aims of the firm to draw attention to sexism.<br /><br />Third, Long is a moral theorist, and is here arguing that people are acting wrongly in certain kinds of situations. You may think that it's not appropriate to hold people morally liable for their immoral actions unless they cross some legal boundary, but Long certainly wouldn't be bound by that norm as a philosopher. His pointing out that sexism is wrong is perfectly consistent with everyone adopting a mentality of minding their own business; after all, the sexists have their own business to mind as well.Dannyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14933199894935324897noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2473166537823294555.post-14402237020385281502009-05-12T03:19:00.000-04:002009-05-12T03:19:00.000-04:00I'd say it's just as dangerous to get into the bus...I'd say it's just as dangerous to get into the business of how much anyone chooses to pay as it is to judge how nice my neighbour is to strangers he meets. We treat everyone differently for all sorts of reasons, why should the way we treat them monetarily matter any more? Indeed, monetary transactions seem to be the one where the motives of either party would be most irrelevant.<br /><br />Producing for 'society' is not the purpose of a firm, giving people their 'just deserts' is not the purpose of a firm; serving the interests of the owners is the purpose of a firm.<br /><br />And why don't these women just set up their own businesses if they're so underpaid? They make up half the population of the planet. If they're not legally barred, yet still incapable or unwilling to do so - well, what of it?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2473166537823294555.post-61194944217596016082009-05-11T09:20:00.000-04:002009-05-11T09:20:00.000-04:00Vichy, Long's argument is that the differences in ...Vichy, Long's argument is that the differences in wages are larger than the difference in productivity would suggest, and that they can be attributed to prejudicial biases against women (whether based on overt sexism or simply on innocent misconceptions). Asserting otherwise will almost certainly fail to satisfy him (or me).<br /><br />I don't think Long is arguing in favor of merit-based compensation. You're right to point out that "desert" is a nebulous concept when it applies to how someone ought to be compensated for their contributions to society or for their mere existence. But if a female employee is basically just as productive as a comparable male employee, it doesn't seem quite as nebulous to say that they should be expected to receive basically the same wages. If we discovered that there was a systematic tendency for women to be paid less in such situations, I do think there would be some reason to reexamine our practices -- even if only because of the obvious profit opportunities!<br /><br />You're right to point out that plenty of people are discriminated against. One could apologetically make the point that irritating people are a drain on an organization, and therefore it is perfectly rational (in the corporate profit-maximizing sense) to discriminate against them. Similarly, one could argue that eccentric people are often difficult to judge, and so it may be somewhat because of higher transaction costs that they are passed over in favor of more "normal" candidates. But the example of ugly people brings up a more cogent point, which is that Long very well might object to these other forms of discrimination as well, in that they often have nothing to do with a worker's productivity or ability to participate in a healthy working community (I guess unless they're really <I>that</I> ugly). The "so what" is that these are people too, and it's a shame that they are systematically treated badly (or less well) for reasons that are "irrelevant" to the standards by which they should be judged in the arena in question.<br /><br />All that being said, it would of course be a legitimate objection to argue that womanhood is <I>not</I> irrelevant in judging a job candidate, and that there's nothing wrong with prejudicial attitudes. But I suspect that that would just end up being a fundamental disagreement between you and Long.Dannyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14933199894935324897noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2473166537823294555.post-11394720129844632642009-05-11T02:02:00.000-04:002009-05-11T02:02:00.000-04:00It would seem to me that outside of political infl...It would seem to me that outside of political influence on determining management structures, the fact that most high-level corporate jobs are held my males would indicate that on average male productivity is higher. Which would indicate that such a bias might be justified. Further, in order to engage in 'consumption' discrimination the person must be in a position to discriminate in the first place - which means, probably being better at jobs like management etc.<br /><br />Also, the 'merit' theory of property and wages is so absurd and arbitrary as to be all inclusive. Saying what someone 'deserves' is nothing less than a meaningless value judgment - there is no coherent way to establish to what proportion a person is 'underpaid'. Merit-free property is much less problematic.<br /><br />Also, ugly people, irritating people and people with eccentric habits are probably more discriminated against than women. And so what?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com