Everyone assumes that changing one variable or another will lead to equality but equilibration rules and it’s simply turning out that we have made a world excellent for women to work in and that we must find something else interesting to do – like conquer and rule. 😉
Source: Original Site Post
-
Ergo, The Market Is No Longer In Our Interest And We Should Return To Rule As Our Means Of Profit?
—“Put (too) simply the only men who are good enough to get into university are men who are good at STEM. Women are good enough to get into non-STEM and STEM fields. Thus, among university students, women dominate in the non-STEM fields and men survive in the STEM fields. (The former is mathematically certain while the latter is true only given current absolute numbers of male students. If fewer men went to college, women would dominate both fields). I don’t know whether this story will hold up but one attractive feature, as a theory, is that it is consistent with the worrying exit from the labor market of men at the bottom. If we accept these results, the gender gap industry is focused on the wrong thing. The real gender gap is that men are having trouble competing everywhere except in STEM.”— -
Ergo, The Market Is No Longer In Our Interest And We Should Return To Rule As Our Means Of Profit?
—“Put (too) simply the only men who are good enough to get into university are men who are good at STEM. Women are good enough to get into non-STEM and STEM fields. Thus, among university students, women dominate in the non-STEM fields and men survive in the STEM fields. (The former is mathematically certain while the latter is true only given current absolute numbers of male students. If fewer men went to college, women would dominate both fields). I don’t know whether this story will hold up but one attractive feature, as a theory, is that it is consistent with the worrying exit from the labor market of men at the bottom. If we accept these results, the gender gap industry is focused on the wrong thing. The real gender gap is that men are having trouble competing everywhere except in STEM.”— -
This annoys the hell out of me. What they mean is, that the windfall to the worl
This annoys the hell out of me. What they mean is, that the windfall to the world of the end of communism; the windfall to the world of automating clerical work by computers; the windfall to the world by the development of the internet; gave us insane rewards from the late 80’s to the 2001 Crash which reset to normal. But that they dumped money into the economy creating the overexpansion of the housing market, which then led to that correction (crash). Meaning that we are back to the trend of the 1980’s. I don’t know how smart you have to be to grok that american’s have been the beneficiaries of numerous windfalls that the rest of the world has not: the conquest of a new continent; the Louisiana Purchase and the western Expansion; the immigration of hordes of the underclasses into those territories; the introduction of fiat currency to finance those immigrants; the crash that followed; the world wars that followed leaving the USA as inheritor of the British Empire; Leaving the US worker the only industrial labor left with production capital intact. This ‘jolly’ led to the social activism of the 1960’s which sought to imitate the soviet union and destroyed most of industrial america. The consequential export of work to other countries free of non-market labor; the use of petrodollars under nixon to defeat the Soviets and the Chinese and World communism, and expanded moreso by Regan to complete that defeat. The use of that military technology to produce computer revolution; and the creation of vast changes in our economy due to technology. At present we are going through another vast change due to amazon, google, and facebook altering the commercial sector dramatically – and the world is catching up eliminating our military advantage, our petro-dollar, our technological advantages. The only advantage we had left was demographic and normative – and the left is destroying that too. So when someone says, that we have lost income growth it’s empirically true but logically false. Why? Because we had windfalls from heaven one after another. And the world is returning to the status quo. Except there are 10x as many of us. —“The slow early-2000s recovery and expansion, combined with the damage done by the Great Recession, has led to nearly two decades of lost income growth for typical American households,” says economist Elise Gould of the left-leaning Economic Policy Institute.”— -
This annoys the hell out of me. What they mean is, that the windfall to the worl
This annoys the hell out of me. What they mean is, that the windfall to the world of the end of communism; the windfall to the world of automating clerical work by computers; the windfall to the world by the development of the internet; gave us insane rewards from the late 80’s to the 2001 Crash which reset to normal. But that they dumped money into the economy creating the overexpansion of the housing market, which then led to that correction (crash). Meaning that we are back to the trend of the 1980’s. I don’t know how smart you have to be to grok that american’s have been the beneficiaries of numerous windfalls that the rest of the world has not: the conquest of a new continent; the Louisiana Purchase and the western Expansion; the immigration of hordes of the underclasses into those territories; the introduction of fiat currency to finance those immigrants; the crash that followed; the world wars that followed leaving the USA as inheritor of the British Empire; Leaving the US worker the only industrial labor left with production capital intact. This ‘jolly’ led to the social activism of the 1960’s which sought to imitate the soviet union and destroyed most of industrial america. The consequential export of work to other countries free of non-market labor; the use of petrodollars under nixon to defeat the Soviets and the Chinese and World communism, and expanded moreso by Regan to complete that defeat. The use of that military technology to produce computer revolution; and the creation of vast changes in our economy due to technology. At present we are going through another vast change due to amazon, google, and facebook altering the commercial sector dramatically – and the world is catching up eliminating our military advantage, our petro-dollar, our technological advantages. The only advantage we had left was demographic and normative – and the left is destroying that too. So when someone says, that we have lost income growth it’s empirically true but logically false. Why? Because we had windfalls from heaven one after another. And the world is returning to the status quo. Except there are 10x as many of us. —“The slow early-2000s recovery and expansion, combined with the damage done by the Great Recession, has led to nearly two decades of lost income growth for typical American households,” says economist Elise Gould of the left-leaning Economic Policy Institute.”— -
We Are Finally Recovering From 2008
America’s middle class had its highest-earning year ever in 2016, the U.S. Census Bureau reported Tuesday. Median household income in America was $59,039 last year, surpassing the previous high of $58,655 set in 1999, the Census Bureau said. The figure is adjusted for inflation and is one of the most closely watched indicators of how the middle class is faring financially, as the Census surveys nearly 100,000 homes. The Census said the uptick in earnings occurred because so many people found full-time jobs — or better-paying jobs — last year. America’s poverty rate also fell to 12.7 percent, the lowest since 2007, the year before the financial crisis hit. -
We Are Finally Recovering From 2008
America’s middle class had its highest-earning year ever in 2016, the U.S. Census Bureau reported Tuesday. Median household income in America was $59,039 last year, surpassing the previous high of $58,655 set in 1999, the Census Bureau said. The figure is adjusted for inflation and is one of the most closely watched indicators of how the middle class is faring financially, as the Census surveys nearly 100,000 homes. The Census said the uptick in earnings occurred because so many people found full-time jobs — or better-paying jobs — last year. America’s poverty rate also fell to 12.7 percent, the lowest since 2007, the year before the financial crisis hit. -
“Curt: What’s a Forgone Opportunity Cost?”— Good question. An opportunity cost
—“Curt: What’s a Forgone Opportunity Cost?”— Good question. An opportunity cost refers to the difference in cost between alternative choices. A forgone opportunity cost is a form of opportunity cost wherein you bear a cost of *restraint* (not seizing an opportunity) in order to pay for something else. Most notably the institution of property rights itself. So the opportunity cost of buying a pizza versus saving for a motorcycle, or buying a steak dinner versus the forgone opportunity cost of returning a lost wallet to the person that has lost it – contents intact. In general I use forgone opportunity costs to refer to the means by which we pay for normative commons: manners, ethics, morals, traditions, rituals, festivals, where we forgo opportunities for discounts or gains in order to create less tangible goods (morality is the best example.) -
“Curt: What’s a Forgone Opportunity Cost?”— Good question. An opportunity cost
—“Curt: What’s a Forgone Opportunity Cost?”— Good question. An opportunity cost refers to the difference in cost between alternative choices. A forgone opportunity cost is a form of opportunity cost wherein you bear a cost of *restraint* (not seizing an opportunity) in order to pay for something else. Most notably the institution of property rights itself. So the opportunity cost of buying a pizza versus saving for a motorcycle, or buying a steak dinner versus the forgone opportunity cost of returning a lost wallet to the person that has lost it – contents intact. In general I use forgone opportunity costs to refer to the means by which we pay for normative commons: manners, ethics, morals, traditions, rituals, festivals, where we forgo opportunities for discounts or gains in order to create less tangible goods (morality is the best example.) -
Libertarianism (via negativa) = Elimination of rivalry by test of demonstrated i
Libertarianism (via negativa) = Elimination of rivalry by test of demonstrated interest in a rivalrous opportunity; where interest is demonstrated by the bearing of costs of homesteading (origination), Conversion(Transformation), Exchange(Reciprocity), or Forgone Opportunity; and where we warranty our own non-retaliation against restitution or retaliation by individual, group, insurer, or institution against violators of that rule – and optionally warranty insurance others by participation in restitution or retaliation against violators of that rule. That is the most accurate, complete, scientific definition of libertarianism that I know of, with the variation among libertarians being only the scope of interests they are willing to insure. Any claim otherwise, that I know of, is an act of fraud. (Theft).