Monthly Archives: May 2016

Why Men Make More Than Women – Part 1,782,873

Income Inequality

Going through some old material on wage gaps between men and women when I came across this article from The Atlantic:

Though headway has been made in bringing women’s wages more in line with men’s in the past several decades, that convergence seems to have stalled in more recent years. To help determine why,  Francine D. Blau and Lawrence M. Kahn, the authors of a new study from the National Bureau of Economic Research parse data on wages and occupations from 1980 to 2010. They find that as more women attended and graduated college and headed into the working world, education and professional experience levels stopped playing a significant role in the the difference between men and women’s wages. Whatever remains of the discrepancy can’t be explained by women not having basic skills and credentials. So what does explain it?

Simple, but huge.  Try telling a liberal that women make less for reasons other than sexism and watch the reaction.  And yet, right here in The Atlantic we have progress.  People are willing to admit that there might be other reasons behind a difference in pay.

The largest factor in the persistent wage gap is the dearth of women in specific jobs and industries, the researchers found. That means that narrowing the wage gap further requires making high-paying, male-dominated industries like STEM fields and tech companies more enticing and welcoming to women. And even before that, encouraging women and girls to take advantage of opportunities to explore and learn about fields like coding and science that remain male-dominated at both the professional and college level.

The proof in this can be seen by simply looking up ‘work place mortality’.  There you will see a dramatic difference in the sexes.  While not explaining the gap in pay – it does show a difference, a significant difference, between the jobs that men and women take and work.

The study also points to … wait for it … culture, which continues to favor men’s participation in the workforce and women’s participation on the home front. “Current research continues to find evidence of a motherhood penalty for women and of a marriage premium for men,” the report finds. “The greater tendency of men to determine the geographic location of the family continues to be a factor even among highly educated couples.”

Again, absolutely true – and NOT a sign of sexism.

When marriage and kids come around, more women tend to want to stay closer to home and family while men want [are forced] to work and provide.  While I would never say that being a stay at home mom is easy, it surely ranks VERY high on the ‘best job in the world’ scale.  Highly rewarding to say the least.

And your humble corespondent happens to be married to a more capable human than he.  My wife is a far superior corporate warrior than Ii am, and has been rewarded accordingly,  But she has turned down multiple opportunities because the trade off isn’t worth it to her.  The sacrifice to family would be too high.

However, had I ever been offered as such – I am sure she would have supported me in my new role.

Why the Left can’t just nod and pass the beer nuts here is perplexing.  And their insistence on forcing culture to shift to accommodate a condition that no one is fighting is even more perplexing.

But – War on Women and all.

Bernie Sanders And The Social Contract

Sanders Supporter

The Human Condition.

Liberals forget that the Human Condition is basically base.  At the core of it all, people tend to look after their own self interests.  Greedy?  Maybe.

But generally true and non-controversial.

And we see guys like Bernie Sanders extolling the Social Contract.  That agreement between the Haves [the State?] and the Have Nots that speaks to basic protections for the needy to stave off destitution.

We all know the responsibility of the 1% according to Sanders.  We know what he think ‘their fair share’ is.  But what  of the OTHER side of the contract?  The quid pro quo?  In return for such safety nets, what can society expect from those who seek such protection?

You see, after the 1% provide free food for the birds of the air there is always one Bernie dude that has to ruin the party for everyone and results in the Haves just walking away.

Capitalism – Not Bernie – Reduces Poverty

Global Poverty

With Bernie Sander’s most recent campaign it would be easy to believe that we are poor and getting poorer.  And that the only salvation available to us is to beg government to save us.

Let us never forget – the natural state of man is poverty and the only cure to date, the ONLY condition where the lot of the everyday man has improved, is freer and more open markets:

Despite the recent recession in the West, absolute poverty is continuing to retreat in fast-growing developing countries. The escape from poverty that was once limited to the industrialized countries of the West is also happening in “the rest.”

Unfortunately, many people remain unaware of the dramatic decline in global poverty, let alone the reasons for it.

According to an announcement released this week by the World Bank, “less than 10% of the world’s population will be living in extreme poverty by the end of 2015.”

The bank has “used a new income figure of $1.90 per day to define extreme poverty, up from $1.25. It forecasts that the proportion of the world’s population in this category will fall from 12.8% in 2012 to 9.6%.”

Now, to be sure, 9.6% is still high  – higher than it should/could be.  So whence came you?

Grinding poverty was the norm for most ordinary people throughout human history. As recently as 1980, the World Bank estimated that 50% of the global population lived in absolute poverty.

Even in the most economically advanced parts of the world, life used to be miserable until relatively recently.

At the end of the 18th century, to give one example, France had the fourth highest standard of living of any country in the world, behind the U.S., Great Britain and the Netherlands.

Yet, 10 million of France’s 23 million people relied on some sort of public or private charity to survive, and 3 million were full-time beggars.

All of this occurred, of course, with not a single Commissar in charge of this phenomenal growth.

Cast off the chains of regulation and throw open the doors of the freer market!

Where The Liberal Confronts Proper Role of Government

Role of Government

I often harp on the proper role of government.  In fact, it’s a favorite topic of mine.

“Yes, programs that provide milk to mothers are good for the mothers and the children, but is that the proper role of government?”

So you can imagine my excitement when I was confronted with a liberal questioning if a particular policy was, indeed, the role of government.  After all, it is the fall back position of the liberal to use the coercive force of the state to force compliance for an otherwise unpopular program.

“Don’t wanna voluntarily donate money to the plight of the spotted owl?  Fine, I’ll elect 2 new county commissioners and force you to pay taxes to do just that.”

Anyway, to the chase:

Is this the role government ought to be playing in people’s lives? John Stuart Mill condemned such efforts, writing, “The only purpose for which power may be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilized community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others. His own good, either physical or moral, is not a sufficient warrant.”

People may make bad choices, Mill and others argue. But that’s one of the costs of a free society. And it’s not as though government intervention is risk-free: The government may make even worse decisions on people’s behalf. Or, when it treats them like children, why expect that they will ever act like adults?

What sorcery this?  Who has swooped in and transformed my liberal into a rock-ribbed conservative?  What government over reach could they possibly be protesting?

Or, as described below:

But the Worcester program goes a step beyond many of these initiatives, as the penalty for not complying is so great.

Jeepers!  What horribleness could this be?

“IMPORTANT MESSAGE: Residents Required to Go to Work/Attend School.” As long as they weren’t disabled or over 55, the letter elaborated, at least one member of each household had to go to work or school, or risk eviction.


How dare the government over reach when applying conditions to government over reach!?

Yes, you read that right.  Forget the fact that confiscating my money to pay for someone else’s home is somehow not over reach, the radical idea that such a recipient should work or learn a skill enabling work IS over reach is only  possible in the mind of the leftist.


Boycott: Target

Target 2

I’ve seen that there is a nationwide boycott of Target:

On its web site, Target announced, “[W]e welcome transgender team members and guests to use the restroom or fitting room facility that corresponds with their gender identity. …Everyone deserves to feel like they belong.”

This isn’t silly – it’s stupid.

Carolina passed HB2 not as a rule to keep private restrooms in compliance but rather as a response to the city of Charlotte’s over reach in mandating restroom policy.  The WHOLE point of HB2 is that each private business Ought be free to craft their own policy.

And Target has.

More power to them.

And since almost every facility in Target is individual stall/facility, I don’t have an issue with their decision.

Please, shop at Target and celebrate individual liberty!