janw@inmet.UUCP (11/15/85)
The following is from "Detroit News", quoted in "National Review" of Nov 29, page 10: >Since the dreaded Mr. Reagan came to power in 1980, the country >has created 7,067,000 jobs, and women took 5,540,000, or >78.4 per cent. >... about 65 per cent of all the wage and salary growth since >1980 has gone to women, not men.
baba@spar.UUCP (Baba ROM DOS) (11/17/85)
> > The following is from "Detroit News", quoted in "National Review" > of Nov 29, page 10: > > >Since the dreaded Mr. Reagan came to power in 1980, the country > >has created 7,067,000 jobs, and women took 5,540,000, or > >78.4 per cent. > >... about 65 per cent of all the wage and salary growth since > >1980 has gone to women, not men. Interesting statistics, but given your title, "Equality through Reaganomics?", it would be nice if you could provide us with a clue as to which of this administration's policies might be credited with bringing about this state of affairs. "Post hoc, ergo propter hoc", is insufficient. This is not a command economy, fortunately, and there are social and economic forces at play that are quite orthogonal to the goals of this administration. Baba
mrh@cybvax0.UUCP (Mike Huybensz) (11/19/85)
In article <7800672@inmet.UUCP> janw@inmet.UUCP writes: > > The following is from "Detroit News", quoted in "National Review" > of Nov 29, page 10: > > "Since the dreaded Mr. Reagan came to power in 1980, the country > has created 7,067,000 jobs, and women took 5,540,000, or > 78.4 per cent. > ... about 65 per cent of all the wage and salary growth since > 1980 has gone to women, not men." Good 'ol Jan, ever-ready with the suggested non-sequitur (not-so-cleverly hidden in the title. Perhaps you'd be good enough to share with us your reasoned conclusion from this quotation. Or perhaps statistics without context are your favorite flavor of propaganda? Anybody can provide you with lots. That you might or might not like. Such as servicemen dead overseas since Reagan came to power, billions of dollars of waste in the defense departments since Reagan came to power, etc. It's a good thing you don't like context or comparisons, or some of those might not be very impressive. -- Mike Huybensz ...decvax!genrad!mit-eddie!cybvax0!mrh
patrick@ISM780B.UUCP (11/21/85)
Just goes to show, dunnit? If all the women stayed home where they belong, there'd be no unemployment. I mean, it stands to reason....
janw@inmet.UUCP (11/21/85)
>[Mike Huybensz ...decvax!genrad!mit-eddie!cybvax0!mrh] >In article <7800672@inmet.UUCP> janw@inmet.UUCP writes: >> The following is from "Detroit News", quoted in "National Review" >> of Nov 29, page 10: >> "Since the dreaded Mr. Reagan came to power in 1980, the country >> has created 7,067,000 jobs, and women took 5,540,000, or >> 78.4 per cent. >> ... about 65 per cent of all the wage and salary growth since >> 1980 has gone to women, not men." >Good 'ol Jan, ever-ready with the suggested non-sequitur (not-so-cleverly >hidden in the title. Perhaps you'd be good enough to share with us your >reasoned conclusion from this quotation. Glad to; I thought it was obvious. My apologies. *Business deregu- lation may be better for equal opportunity than affirmative action*. Of course there are other factors involved than govt policy, so the conclusion is merely an inductive conjecture. That is why I added the (?). But if you wished to accuse me of a logical fal- lacy, it should've been "post hoc, ergo propter hoc", rather than "non-sequitur". Instead, you interpreted my note as a blanket endorsement of the present administration. To dispel that impression (and I really should not have to) let me list a few areas where I disapprove of its policies: MX ; abortion; death penalty; school prayer; re- vival of detente; choice of welfare cuts; incoherent mixture of monetarism and supply-side'ism; indiscriminate DoD funding; empty rhetoric on terrorism. I could name many, many more. Now please re-read your response calmly - and I know you can be logical when you try. What do GI casualties have to do with the text *or* the title of my note ? Watch that knee, Mike: it jerked in mid-word! Right between Reagan- and -omics. Jan Wasilewsky
janw@inmet.UUCP (11/23/85)
[patrick@ISM780B] >Just goes to show, dunnit? If all the women stayed home where they >belong, there'd be no unemployment. I mean, it stands to reason.... You are joking, of course, but there *are* a lot of people who think that someone who gets a job (a woman, immigrant or whatever) *takes* the job from others. On the contrary, anyone who holds a productive job *makes* jobs for others. Thus, the more jobs for women, the more jobs for *everyone*. Jan Wasilewsky
mrh@cybvax0.UUCP (Mike Huybensz) (11/24/85)
In article <7800697@inmet.UUCP> janw@inmet.UUCP writes (> and > >>): > >> "Since the dreaded Mr. Reagan came to power in 1980, the country > >> has created 7,067,000 jobs, and women took 5,540,000, or > >> 78.4 per cent. > >> ... about 65 per cent of all the wage and salary growth since > >> 1980 has gone to women, not men." > > >Good 'ol Jan, ever-ready with the suggested non-sequitur (not-so-cleverly > >hidden in the title. Perhaps you'd be good enough to share with us your > >reasoned conclusion from this quotation. > > Glad to; I thought it was obvious. My apologies. *Business deregu- > lation may be better for equal opportunity than affirmative action*. Fortunately, others have adequately rebutted the original "conclusion", and their rebuttals serve equally well for this one. Though of course you still provide no reasoning. > Of course there are other factors involved than govt policy, so > the conclusion is merely an inductive conjecture. That is why I > added the (?). But if you wished to accuse me of a logical fal- > lacy, it should've been "post hoc, ergo propter hoc", rather than > "non-sequitur". Sorry, but your argument wasn't even complete enough to be of the fallacious form "correlation implies cause". Because you didn't establish that your statistics had anything to do with equality (as other rebuttals have shown.) Without a base of reference, you might just as well be saying that women are getting further ahead of men, which certainly wouldn't be equality. But I don't want to put words in your mouth. (They'd hardly fit past your feet.... :-) > Instead, you interpreted my note as a blanket endorsement of the > present administration. To dispel that impression (and I really > should not have to) let me list a few areas where I disapprove of > its policies: MX ; abortion; death penalty; school prayer; re- > vival of detente; choice of welfare cuts; incoherent mixture of > monetarism and supply-side'ism; indiscriminate DoD funding; empty > rhetoric on terrorism. I could name many, many more. We share almost all of those (though we might prefer different alternatives.) > Now please re-read your response calmly - and I know you can be > logical when you try. What do GI casualties have to do with > the text *or* the title of my note ? Watch that knee, Mike: > it jerked in mid-word! Right between Reagan- and -omics. Gosh, I guess it's my turn now to dispell your impression that I dislike everything the present administration does. I can list a few things too: Supreme Court Justice O'Conner, (it's getting harder to think of anything else...) firing Burford and Watt, keeping Bush silent, embarrasing itself, etc. -- Mike Huybensz ...decvax!genrad!mit-eddie!cybvax0!mrh
jim@ISM780B.UUCP (11/24/85)
>>Just goes to show, dunnit? If all the women stayed home where they >>belong, there'd be no unemployment. I mean, it stands to reason.... > >You are joking, of course, but there *are* a lot of people who >think that someone who gets a job (a woman, immigrant or whatever) >*takes* the job from others. On the contrary, anyone who holds >a productive job *makes* jobs for others. Thus, the more jobs >for women, the more jobs for *everyone*. I understand how creating new jobs leads to creating other new jobs, but just how does forcing one person out of a job due to availability of cheaper labor create new jobs? The current policy seems to be to create conditions of extreme poverty and then lower the minimum wage for minors. The economic conditions force the minors to seek work instead of attend school; the differential on wages gives them a competitive advantage for *existing* jobs, lowering the cost to the employer and forcing the higher-paid adult out of work. Since labor is inelastic (something conveniently ignored by free market freaks), the adult ends up unemployed, his children drop out of school to go to work ... Now in the case of immigrants, many of the jobs they take are so bad no one else would take them anyway. -- Jim Balter (ima!jim)
jim@ISM780B.UUCP (11/24/85)
>/* Written 2:55 pm Nov 21, 1985 by janw@inmet in ISM780B:net.politics */ >>[Mike Huybensz ...decvax!genrad!mit-eddie!cybvax0!mrh] >>In article <7800672@inmet.UUCP> janw@inmet.UUCP writes: >>> The following is from "Detroit News", quoted in "National Review" >>> of Nov 29, page 10: >>> "Since the dreaded Mr. Reagan came to power in 1980, the country >>> has created 7,067,000 jobs, and women took 5,540,000, or >>> 78.4 per cent. >>> ... about 65 per cent of all the wage and salary growth since >>> 1980 has gone to women, not men." > >>Good 'ol Jan, ever-ready with the suggested non-sequitur (not-so-cleverly >>hidden in the title. Perhaps you'd be good enough to share with us your >>reasoned conclusion from this quotation. > >Glad to; I thought it was obvious. My apologies. *Business deregu- >lation may be better for equal opportunity than affirmative action*. Obvious that it was your conclusion, perhaps. An obvious conclusion from the quote, hardly. I love this "may be". It is a true statement. So would "may not be". In books like "Chariot of the Gods" or "Devil's Triangle" you find lots of lines like "Perhaps we have been visited by aliens with powerful technologies." or "Is it possible that there is a force here beyond the current understanding of science?". I forget the name of this little rhetorical technique, but the intent is to mislead by insinuation. Dangerous little minds will take your your empty statement as a *conclusion*. You are waging a disinformation campaign. >Of course there are other factors involved than govt policy, so >the conclusion is merely an inductive conjecture. Inductive conjecture? Have you ever heard the term "intellectual honesty"? Don't you think your inductive process would be a bit more valid if it took into account, just for instance, the increase in the percentage of jobs that are in the service sector and the percentage of such jobs that are held by women? >That is why I added the (?). Like in the "Is it possible ...?" case that is ignored by small minds who are just looking for something that agrees with their beliefs. And surely you weren't aiming your comments at people you knew wouldn't buy them? >But if you wished to accuse me of a logical fal- >lacy, it should've been "post hoc, ergo propter hoc", rather than >"non-sequitur". Gee, and he's eddicated, too. So is it your practice and intent to post notes with conscious rhetorical fallacies? >Now please re-read your response calmly - and I know you can be >logical when you try. What do GI casualties have to do with >the text *or* the title of my note ? Watch that knee, Mike: >it jerked in mid-word! Right between Reagan- and -omics. You *must* be kidding. You post something that occurred during the Reagan administration, with a "conjectured" but totally unjustified (by you or the quote) implication that a specific policy not only was responsible, but was better than another policy which wasn't even treated by the data (affirmative action is still in effect despite Meese's attempts to dismantle it, and you offered no data indicating the change in the number of women in the workplace since a.a. went into effect). So Mike responds with a couple of his own (dead servicemen and DoD waste), also unsupported and arguably p.h.e.p.h. You don't see a valid connection? You want put your *method* of presentation of information out of bounds of discussion? No dice. You said elsewhere that you agree with the principle that your conclusion, even if correct, is not trustworthy if it wasn't reached through impartial analysis. So put it into practice. Intellectual honesty. Think about it. -- Jim Balter (ima!jim)
janw@inmet.UUCP (11/25/85)
[Jim Balter (ima!jim)] >>>> [I posted an economic statistic about women's jobs and wages >>>> with the title "Equality through Reaganomics ? "] [Mike Huybensz] >>>Good 'ol Jan, ever-ready with the suggested non-sequitur (not-so-cleverly >>>hidden in the title. Perhaps you'd be good enough to share with us your >>>reasoned conclusion from this quotation. >>Glad to; I thought it was obvious. My apologies. *Business deregu- >>lation may be better for equal opportunity than affirmative action*. >I love this "may be". It is a true statement. >So would "may not be". [examples] "may be", in context, means "plausible, and worth examination". *That is what I posted it for*. >I forget the name of this little rhetorical technique, but the intent >is to mislead by insinuation. Dangerous little minds will take your >your empty statement as a *conclusion*. You are waging a disinformation >campaign. *You* know all about *my* intent. Good for you. Let me make a guess at yours. It was not my carefully guarded *conclusion* that sent you flaming. It was the little *fact*. You are afraid *it* will lead "little minds" off the straight and narrow. You are waging a censorship campaign. >>Of course there are other factors involved [...] >>That is why I added the (?). "Science begins and ends with a question". >Like in the "Is it possible ...?" case that is ignored by small minds >who are just looking for something that agrees with their beliefs. >And surely you weren't aiming your comments at people you knew wouldn't >buy them? I addressed them to the large minds, to give them something that perhaps *disagrees* with their beliefs. You know, people big enough to *change their mind* once in a while. Better still, the discussion might help me change *mine* . Economists were the people I mostly hoped to draw out. I am selling nothing. I say what I think, especially if it is un- popular. I can afford to, not having a herd of "small minds" to keep to a party line. This, apparently, is all you think about. Pity. I seek to enlighten, with facts and ideas. You strive to control, suppress, and direct, for everyone's good, to be sure. I do not wish you luck. Jan Wasilewsky
janw@inmet.UUCP (11/25/85)
[Jim Balter (ima!jim)] >... You post something that occurred during the >Reagan administration, with a "conjectured" but totally unjustified >(by you or the quote) implication that a specific policy not only >was responsible, but was better than another policy which wasn't >even treated by the data (affirmative action is still in effect >despite Meese's attempts to dismantle it, and you offered no data >indicating the change in the number of women in the workplace since a.a. >went into effect). The newspapers write that the administration has been dragging its feet on affirmative action, and I believe them. The adminis- tration claims to be scrapping regulations by the bushel, and I believe (perhaps erroneously) there is some core of truth in it. This is the policy being tested. At the very least, it has not *prevented* the gains in equality. I think this is interesting and worth consideration. I offer the facts *for* consideration. Tim has just drawn interesting conclusions, *opposite* to mine, from the same facts. Right or wrong, at least he was *thinking* about facts, not trying to suppress them. Quit standing guard over "little minds". Enlarge your own, by not being scared of fact and thought. Jan Wasilewsky
nrh@inmet.UUCP (11/25/85)
>/* Written 1:46 pm Nov 24, 1985 by jim@ISM780B in inmet:net.politics */ >>>Just goes to show, dunnit? If all the women stayed home where they >>>belong, there'd be no unemployment. I mean, it stands to reason.... >> >>You are joking, of course, but there *are* a lot of people who >>think that someone who gets a job (a woman, immigrant or whatever) >>*takes* the job from others. On the contrary, anyone who holds >>a productive job *makes* jobs for others. Thus, the more jobs >>for women, the more jobs for *everyone*. > >I understand how creating new jobs leads to creating other new jobs, >but just how does forcing one person out of a job due to availability >of cheaper labor create new jobs? I think you've got hold of the wrong end of the stick, here. You might ask of the first part of a surgical procedure: "How does cutting people open cure them?" The "availability of cheaper labor" means that there are people willing to do the work for less. Typically it means that the "cheaper labor" folks are POORER than the fellow who has the job already. So you offer the person who has the job a lower wage -- he refuses, he "needs" the salary he had. (This process can be VERY indirect -- the folks in Michigan, with a per-capita income of $11,466, can lose fleet contracts to the folks in Japan with a per-capita income of $9,864). You then offer it to the "cheaper labor", who accepts (You offer it first to the people you've been dealing with because that's smart business). The "cheaper labor" is not some subhumanoid hive-oriented creature who may be safely regarded as more compliant, or less deserving -- he (or she) is a human being, perhaps living in a poorer country, perhaps the victim of prejudice, perhaps simply less-skilled (though sufficiently skilled that he/she is useful to you). Is it so horrible that the free market in this case tends to distribute money among the downtrodden and away from those who refuse to compete? >The current policy seems to be to >create conditions of extreme poverty and then lower the minimum wage for >minors. That's quite a remarkable statement. Where can I find the organization doing this? Lowering or getting rid of the minimum wage WOULD be a good idea -- before the imposition of the minimum wage, black youth unemployment was about the same as white youth unemployment. I assume that whoever is administering this "policy" is not couching it in terms of "creating conditions of extreme poverty" -- what do they (whoever "they" are) actually say about it? >The economic conditions force the minors to seek work instead >of attend school; the differential on wages gives them a competitive >advantage for *existing* jobs, lowering the cost to the employer and forcing >the higher-paid adult out of work. Quite a simplistic analysis, this. I assume that this is backed up with some statistics, somewhere? In particular it seems to imply that the role of skill and experience can be neglected. In some jobs this is true -- some assembly-line work, for example. In other jobs (heavy equipment operation, carpentry) this is not true. >Since labor is inelastic (something >conveniently ignored by free market freaks), the adult ends up unemployed, >his children drop out of school to go to work ... Once you're an "official adult", then it's nasty of Jim@ism780 to tell you that you can't have a job because Jim wants to keep employed somebody making (say) twice your anticipated wage, and until you're that age, you're pretty heavily under the thumb of your parents, at least as far as getting a real job goes. Labor inelastic (in supply)? Somewhat, certainly, but do you have any figures? If labor WERE very inelastic in supply, then we would NOT see a change in high-school students' behavior because of a change in wages. Further, the person in the high bracket (whose job is about to be destroyed unless he takes a pay cut) would then not even consider refusing the lower salary -- it would be madness. Or perhaps you mean "inelastic in demand"? This would imply that jobs are NOT created in response to offers to take jobs for lower wages, nor destroyed in the face of demands for higher wages. But this propensity for detroying jobs in the face of demands for continued high wages would seem to be what you're complaining about, so I doubt you mean "inelastic in demand". Besides, it would imply that no jobs were destroyed by the imposition of minimum wage. How many elevator operators, shop girls, lamplighters, butlers, and maids, do you see around these days? >Now in the case of immigrants, many of the jobs they take are so bad >no one else would take them anyway. Besides being more than a little insulting to the immigrants involved, this contradicts your earlier assertion that labor is "not elastic". because clearly if a job that "nobody else would take" will be taken anyhow, then the supply of labor is elastic so long as people can immigrate.
jim@ISM780B.UUCP (11/27/85)
/* Written 11:32 am Nov 25, 1985 by janw@inmet in ISM780B:net.politics */ [Jim Balter (ima!jim)] >>>> [I posted an economic statistic about women's jobs and wages >>>> with the title "Equality through Reaganomics ? "] >[Mike Huybensz] >>>>Good 'ol Jan, ever-ready with the suggested non-sequitur (not-so-cleverly >>>>hidden in the title. Perhaps you'd be good enough to share with us your >>>>reasoned conclusion from this quotation. > >>>Glad to; I thought it was obvious. My apologies. *Business deregu- >>>lation may be better for equal opportunity than affirmative action*. > >>I love this "may be". It is a true statement. >>So would "may not be". [examples] > >"may be", in context, means "plausible, and worth examination". >*That is what I posted it for*. You said it was an obvious reasoned conclusion. You didn't give "may not be" the same status. How about providing some analysis that shows how the data supports the conclusion? My whole point is that you are "leading the witness" by suggesting plausible explanations without supporting them, just as Von Daniken does, which is why I mentioned "Chariots of the Gods". >>I forget the name of this little rhetorical technique, but the intent >>is to mislead by insinuation. Dangerous little minds will take your >>your empty statement as a *conclusion*. You are waging a disinformation >>campaign. > >*You* know all about *my* intent. Good for you. Let me make a >guess at yours. It was not my carefully guarded *conclusion* that >sent you flaming. It was the little *fact*. You are afraid *it* >will lead "little minds" off the straight and narrow. You are >waging a censorship campaign. Pardon me, but I have an informed opinion about your intent. Now, since I have been talking about your mode of presentation, not about the facts presented, where does your guess come from? I have no fear of the fact. I have no fear of conclusions reached from it through logic. But I despise dishonest rhetoric. I will take no legal action to stop same, nor will I encourage the filtering out of your comments, nor anything else that constitutes censorship, which I oppose. But I will continue to call a spade a spade. Others can draw their own opinions. >>>Of course there are other factors involved [...] >>>That is why I added the (?). > >"Science begins and ends with a question". But which questions are asked determines the direction in which science progresses. >>Like in the "Is it possible ...?" case that is ignored by small minds >>who are just looking for something that agrees with their beliefs. >>And surely you weren't aiming your comments at people you knew wouldn't >>buy them? > >I addressed them to the large minds, to give them something that >perhaps *disagrees* with their beliefs. You know, people big >enough to *change their mind* once in a while. Better still, >the discussion might help me change *mine* . Economists were the >people I mostly hoped to draw out. I can accept this, but by labeling the *fact* with your *conclusion* or *interpretation*, whether with a question mark or not, limits the direction of thought. >I am selling nothing. I say what I think, especially if it is un- >popular. I can afford to, not having a herd of "small minds" to >keep to a party line. >This, apparently, is all you think about. Pity. >I seek to enlighten, with facts and ideas. You strive to control, >suppress, and direct, for everyone's good, to be sure. I do not >wish you luck. Getting pretty hostile, eh? Can't take a little criticism, eh? I suspect we both do a bit of enlightening as well as obfuscating and controlling. In my life I have been known more for the former than the latter. I do wish you luck, in learning to challenge your own preconceptions as well as all other aspects of quality of life that people deserve. I share your wish that I do not succeed in any sort of suppression. If you think that strong expressions of disagreement are suppression, then you don't know what the word means. As for control, I wish to exert some control over my own life and fate, but I have steadfastly avoided the means of control over others. Again, I'm not sure you know what the word means. As for direction, we can all use some. I hope neither of us is successful in *mis*direction. -- Jim Balter (ima!jim)
mrh@cybvax0.UUCP (Mike Huybensz) (11/27/85)
In article <7800738@inmet.UUCP> janw@inmet.UUCP writes in defense of the lines prefixed by "> >>": > >>Of course there are other factors involved [...] > >>That is why I added the (?). > > "Science begins and ends with a question". Oh, boy, it's not often that I get to thump this fallacy of argument. #5 "Evasion of a sound refutation of an argument by the use of a sophistical formula" [also known as bumper-sticker thinking.] (Page 173 of "How to Think straight" by Robert Thouless, in the chapter "Thirty Four Dishonest Tricks of Argument".) Are you trying to tell us that your methods of analysis, article writing, or opinion formation are science? Or are you trying to tell us that appending a question mark to what you write makes it science? Hey look, I just wrote two scientific sentences! Wait till I tell my mom! > I addressed them to the large minds, to give them something that > perhaps *disagrees* with their beliefs. You know, people big > enough to *change their mind* once in a while. > I am selling nothing. I say what I think, especially if it is un- > popular. I can afford to, not having a herd of "small minds" to > keep to a party line. > This, apparently, is all you think about. Pity. > I seek to enlighten, with facts and ideas. You strive to control, > suppress, and direct, for everyone's good, to be sure. I do not > wish you luck. My idea of large minds includes avoiding statements and attributions of intent (and other such fallacious meta-subjects and red-herrings), and sticking to the basic subjects of the debate. We all make those mistakes sometimes: let's try not to continue. -- Mike Huybensz ...decvax!genrad!mit-eddie!cybvax0!mrh