Total posts: 532
Posted in:
-->
@CaptainSceptic
Not at all likely, but it is possible insofar as the vote for the forfeited side meets the minimum burden under the Voting Policy
Created:
Posted in:
I meant to c and p this. That's what I get for doing this on my phone.
When you vote, if the debate qualifies as a FF you may either award points declaring it a, or you may vote for the forfeited side, and be subject to moderation.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@CaptainSceptic
If you, as the voter, feel that the forfeited side in an FF debate simply won, then yes, you can vote for then insofar as you provide justification that meets the Voting Policy requirements.
If you vote against the side that full forfeited, then your vote does not need to meet the voting policy standards.
You said it best actually:
"..i.the debate qualifies as a FF you may either award points declaring it a, or you may vote for the forfeited side, and be subject to moderation."
That is correct.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@CaptainSceptic
No, a debate may be full forfeit, but a vote may be cast for the forfeited side if it meets the Voting Policy standards
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@CaptainSceptic
Pro clearly did not provide deficient argumentation
There is no way that I, a neutral party to these debates, could remove a vote because I think that the vote is predicated on faulty logic. If the voter can explain why they think the arguments are insufficient, then that is all that matters insofar as said reasoning is not in violation of the Voting Policy. As long as the RFD meets the minimum standards, I cannot remove a vote. I may disagree with the voter's conclusion, but he awarded argument points and sufficiently justified it in accordance with the voting policy requirements. Those requirements are as follows:
In order to award argument points, a voter must explicitly, and in the text of their RFD, perform the following tasks:
- Survey the main arguments and counterarguments presented in the debate
He listed an argument and counterargument. It is not the place of moderation to determine which arguments are more main than others. - Weigh those arguments against each other (or explain why certain arguments need not be weighed based on what transpired within the debate itself)
He explains why one argument precludes the impact of another. - Explain how, through the process of weighing, they arrived at their voting decision with regard to assigning argument points
He explains that through the strength of the counterargument, he felt that Con won despite the forfeit.
That said, it is fair to suggest that the voting system is flawed. As far as the current requirements though, this vote meets the minimum criteria, so it must stand.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@CaptainSceptic
So, if a person forfeits 2 rounds in a 4 round debate but their opponent provided deficient argumentation, plagiarized, or just never addressed the topic whatsoever, then a vote for the forfeiting side would not warrant removal assuming that the vote meets the minimum requirements of the policy outlined in the following URL.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@sadolite
I previously posted about the alleged over-inflation in the official death statistics. I'll post the information pertaining to the alleged inflation in the death toll here.
I hope I don't come off as rude. I don't necessarily think that there will be accurate figures available until after the pandemic dissipates.
Sources
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Singularity
I never said that irrefutable evidence is necessary to prove that smoking somehow prevented Covid-19. In fact, I don't categorically reject the premise that nicotine could prevent Covid-19. It's premature to call it the truth based on this meta analysis when clear methodological issues tarnish some of the studies chosen. Even the authors of the meta analysis study against drawing conclusions based on nicotine intake and Covid-19.
The biological effects of smoking are pretty well documented, especially as it pertains to cardiovascular problems. Do you take issue with a causal link being drawn between smoking and cardiovascular problems?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
Employers are free to use data regarding productivity to direct their hiring decisions. For blue collar work, it seems, there is a gap when measuring the female gender holistically. However, individuals tend to diverge from the average. And, if anything, the data I published shows that in some industries, women exceed their male colleagues in effectiveness and productivity (i.e. surgeons and general practitioners.) So, the prevailing wisdom that women are less capable workers is not necessarily supported by the data, and when it is, it's not exactly a vast gap in productivity. In fact, when accounting for visible differences in employment, education, productivity, and observable differences between women and men while they work, an unexplained gap is persistently found, and its usually between 4 and 7 percent.
When measuring the credentials of prospective employees, males tend to be favored. If you're claim is that women are simply worse workers, and employers pick up on this when making hiring decisions, then I think I already proved my point. Pervasive stereotypes about how women work affect hiring decisions. If this is the case, and employers are paralyzed by hiring minority groups because they will go bankrupt if they do (like you said) then they are subject to biases, whether rational or not. Also, if businesses are so worried about hiring certain groups of people because doing so increases the chance of business failure, then why is it that over 50% of women are in the workforce? Why is it that the percentage is increasing? Surely, if women are dreadfully unequipped to do their jobs, the numbers of female employees should dwindle, not increase.
Do other factors outstrip the importance of gender? Yes. That doesn't mean that there are no biases in employer decisions. Employers aren't robots and are subject to the same biases and ideas as other people.
By the way, just to make this clear, it was not my intention to ad hom. It just seemed like an insubstantial post that you would expound upon, and I didn't know if that was the end of the conversation or not.
By the way, just to make this clear, it was not my intention to ad hom. It just seemed like an insubstantial post that you would expound upon, and I didn't know if that was the end of the conversation or not.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
No, I didn't mean to ad hom you. You just have a tendency to make one post then edit it later, but the site doesn't email me when it's changed so I'm never alerted. I'll get to the post before this one in a bit.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
Are you gonna edit the comment again? This seems to me like you ceded sarcastically.
Created:
Posted in:
Not at all when your 1st source has the word "might" in it.The second source has the word "may" in the 1st thesis statement.
Are studies only valid when they are 100% definitive? What about the results? How about the methodology?
As for the third source being a "confirmation bias statement," plainly did not look at the methodology or results at all.
The fourth source throws the cost to the employer for retaining a worker into the ether, although they acknowledge the "mystical unexplained 1/3" exists...while admitting 2/3 can definitely be attributed to production incompetency
Alright then. What is it attributed to? The GAO estimates a 7% gap that remains "unexplained" when factoring in occupations chosen, education, and other observable factors (1). The same conclusion was drawn by the Joint Economic Committee's study in 2010 (2).
I noticed how nearly all of these studies lie heavily on worker testimonials and very little on employer testimonials. I already pointed out nearly every worker is subject to some form of Dunning-Kruger where a worker artificially overinflates their self-worth. That is a known psychological trait of all humans, which is why a competent researcher should be relying much more on employer testimonials and little to none of the worker testimonials to get accurate actual data on productivity.
What worker testimonials are you referring to? One of them tracked the movements of workers. One of them looked at specific professions where females excel. One of them used randomized data samples from 3,000 people. The fourth one looked at economic data.
Sources
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
I offered 4 sources. Are you going to edit your comment to address them?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
One cannot determine the output of a potential employee until after they are hired. As far as the employers knew, the two candidates they were supposed to grade had equal credentials and experience. Again, the only changed aspect of the resume was the feminine or male name at the top of the resume. This is in the pre-hiring process, therefore, there is no output to measure yet.
Unless you suggest that absolutely no female candidate can equal a male in terms of delivering output, your argument doesn't really hold water. Employers looked at the resume, saw that 2 people had the same credentials, and then ranked one higher than the other. Perhaps these employers believed that women are worse employees in their field, but they can't offer proof of this. In fact, on average, women tend to be more productive than their male counterparts, or at least, equally competent if we are looking at current studies (1) (2) (3). Not every study agrees, and many find small differences in productivity, but even then, many are quick to point out that differences in productivity only account for 2/3 of the wage differences between men and women (4).
But again, these are individualized resumes I'm talking about. Statistics about overall productivity of a particular race, gender, ethnicity etc. should probably not factor into a hiring decision of one prospective employee.
But again, these are individualized resumes I'm talking about. Statistics about overall productivity of a particular race, gender, ethnicity etc. should probably not factor into a hiring decision of one prospective employee.
Sources
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
Not on any meaningful level. Employers care about money, not genitalia or other social stereotypes, otherwise, robots wouldn't be replacing people.
Robots can replace jobs that are simple, which is why the manufacturing sector has been hit particularly bad by automation. However, not all sectors are affected equally, and concerns about automation taking away everyone's jobs are largely overblown. Oftentimes, labor is simply "pushed" to another occupation due to automation, and oftentimes, automation is not at all associated with a decrease in job opportunities. For example, the number of bank tellers and ATMs rose in tandem with eachother (1). As it so happens, many occupations simply have some of their duties overtaken by robots, but not all. Some jobs, such as elevator operators, did become obsolete, but their duty to aid visitors and guiding people to the right office, was reallocated to other jobs such as security guards and receptionists (2). The aging workforce is predicted to have a 53% bigger impact on the workforce than automation (3). It's estimated that 50% of job activities can be automated right now (4). If that is the case, then why do these jobs still exist?
In any case, you seem to think that employers are impervious from irrational thought when making hiring decisions. This is blatantly untrue. Regardless of actual output, it was shown that perceptions about productivity of certain genders play into hiring decisions when qualifications are equal. The only perceptible difference in near-identical resumes was the feminine or masculine name at the top of the document. When two equally qualified individuals are given different starting wages, that is a perceptible bias. We could recontextualize it, quantify it differently, or analyze the data in any fashion you want, but employers are not impervious to bias in hiring decisions. Nor are these employers solely focused on saving a buck. If someone isn't at all qualified for a position, no matter how paltry a pay they demand, they won't get hired. My first post actually demonstrated bias fairly well, with employers admitting to the fact that they don't want to hire homeless people due to fears of crime, tardiness, etc. There is a stigma attached to homeless people that employers recognize and subscribe to. Clearly, not every employer does this, but many are guided by implicit biases that are well documented. In any case, here is a smattering of what employers have to say about hiring homeless people in low-wage positions:
"I ask for an address because I want to see if they are stable and dependable, whether their roots are planted. I wouldn't hire a homeless personbecause he would be smelly and dirty. I sympathize with their plight,but in some cases it is their choice not to have a home" (5).
"...never hire a homeless person because I work with little childrenand their parents. They won't be impressed if they see that one of my employees is unkempt, smelly, a drug addict, alcoholic, and mentally ill" (5).
So, even if these homeless people would accept lower wages, these employers would not hire them due to perceptions and qualifications. Even if a homeless applicant is lucky enough to have their resume read, companies frequently utilize background check to look into applicants' mode of living (5).
Sources
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
First, your position is singularly unique to you and not indicative of the aggregate labor market.
Second, I make no claim regarding your employment situation. For all I know, you live in outer space and work as a chef to extraterrestrial beings. Nor am I measuring the competence of you or the people trying to unseat you in whatever venerated position you occupy. Clearly, qualifications, competence, and company loyalty go a long way in employment, and labor markets differ based on location, available schooling, etc. This is why I used the term "all else being equal." If we were to only measure the impact of gender on hiring decisions, there would be a detectable bias in who gets hired. You could argue that other factors supplant the impact of gender, and I would probably agree. However, when qualifications are equal, as determined by identical resume tests which I've described before, people with feminine names happened to get rated lower by employers. This isn't a fluke, its a replicable study that 90% of the time finds that women tend to be discriminated against when it comes to employment and pay.
You also repeat the claim that since women are paid less, companies will only hire women. Again, cost is not the only factor in employment. As you mentioned already, competence is important. However, implicit biases based on pervasive stereotypes affect employer decisions in pay. This is one reason that mothers get fewer days off when compared to fathers, receive far less starting pay, and are less likely to be rated competently (1). The common perception of mothers being loyal to their family more than the company is still prevalent and affects breadwinner women who eschew this stereotype. This stereotype still exists despite the fact that over 40% of households are headed by women (2).
Sources
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
If you're going to respond to me, at least tag me.
Whether women “accept” lower pay or not is inconsequential. Employers offer less prestigious positions and pay for women across multiple industries. Prevailing stereotypes still exist, and employers subscribe to them. They routinely rate women’s job skills as lower than their male counterparts even when qualifications are the absolute same, as shown through identical resume studies wherein employers rate the likelihood of hiring particular candidates with identical resumes but either feminine or male names (1) (2). This is especially prevalent in male dominated industries, where the widespread perception is that women perform worse than their male counterparts (1).
Your personal observations about the proficiency of female workers is noted, but in the event that one of those colleagues was just as competent to you, all else being equal, she would not be paid as much, and performance reviews would rate her as less competent. This is not to suggest that being male is an automatic guarantee of success, but it does contribute to employment and pay.
Oh, and as for illegal immigrants, the reason that they work for less money than what would, on average, be paid to an American is that they predominantly occupy low-skilled, manual labor jobs. As for mid-to-high skilled work, a prospective employee may be willing to be paid less, but if they don’t have the qualifications the employer is looking for, they won’t be hired. I may want to become a surgeon and only ask for $4 dollars a year to increase my chances of being hired, but if I have no idea what a scalpel is, I won’t be hired. Medical malpractice suits would eradicate any savings the employers enjoyed. Even for low-income customer service jobs, qualifications are important. Most companies value previous work experience for the position they want filled and would much rather hire a decent floor-staff member who worked for two years already in a comparable position at another company than a 17-year-old who asks for less pay, but is still in high school and has demands he must meet outside of work. Of course, this depends on the pool of labor available to companies, so many do subsidize their bottom line with illegal immigrants when there aren’t enough native workers.
But again, this strays from the topic I was posting about, which is that the plan Athias proffered was insufficient in dealing with homelessness.
Sources
Created:
-->
@Melcharaz
Debates where one side forfeits half of their rounds are considered full-forfeit debates. Insofar as someone doesn't vote for the side that forfeited, any vote suffices. Are you asking to lower the threshold to one forfeit?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@sadolite
I would actually expect the opposite. Publications tend to favor studies that find a causal link between 2 variables (1).
Reasonable peculiarities might have been shown (I can't access the actual study, so no dice on looking at other methodological flaws unless I continue to pick at the Daily Mail article,) but peculiarities are hardly a valid substitute for actual proof. As I stated previously, there is no irrefutable evidence suggesting that smoking decreases one's chances of catching or surviving Covid-19. What is apparent is that certain comorbid diseases elevate the risk of dying to Covid-19, particularly coronary heart disease, myocardial injury, cancer, diabetes, and hypertension (2) (3). The average death rate for those afflicted with cardiovascular diseases is 10% (4). Smoking induces cardiovascular complications in the body, causing plaque buildup in arteries and alterations in blood chemistry (5). Long-term smokers would probably bear the brunt of the virus, which puts young smokers at an advantage. I'd be curious to know if all 20-some studies analyzed control for this.
I am not attacking the validity of the premise - that nicotine can inhibit the impact/spread of Covid-19 - but skepticism is an innate response to this evidence in the face of social desirability bias, widely differing sample sizes (some that border on absurd,) and conflicting studies. The fact that the study with the largest sample size, utilizing the most hospitals, found radically different results than the more compact studies with fewer smokers should raise doubts.
Reasonable peculiarities might have been shown (I can't access the actual study, so no dice on looking at other methodological flaws unless I continue to pick at the Daily Mail article,) but peculiarities are hardly a valid substitute for actual proof. As I stated previously, there is no irrefutable evidence suggesting that smoking decreases one's chances of catching or surviving Covid-19. What is apparent is that certain comorbid diseases elevate the risk of dying to Covid-19, particularly coronary heart disease, myocardial injury, cancer, diabetes, and hypertension (2) (3). The average death rate for those afflicted with cardiovascular diseases is 10% (4). Smoking induces cardiovascular complications in the body, causing plaque buildup in arteries and alterations in blood chemistry (5). Long-term smokers would probably bear the brunt of the virus, which puts young smokers at an advantage. I'd be curious to know if all 20-some studies analyzed control for this.
I am not attacking the validity of the premise - that nicotine can inhibit the impact/spread of Covid-19 - but skepticism is an innate response to this evidence in the face of social desirability bias, widely differing sample sizes (some that border on absurd,) and conflicting studies. The fact that the study with the largest sample size, utilizing the most hospitals, found radically different results than the more compact studies with fewer smokers should raise doubts.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
?
Workers are not always compensated fully for the profit they generate. I never said anything regarding women, the homeless, or any other demographic.
Your claim seems to be that if women are willing to earn less, companies will exclusively hire women to reduce expenditures and by extension bulk up profit margins. If pay were the only factor that employers cared about, maybe you would be correct. However, qualifications, image, background checks, and innumerable other factors play into whether someone is hired. Pay is likely more important for low-skilled, minimum wage labor which is why women are over-represented in minimum wage jobs (1). Also, there is the matter of the pool of applicants available for hire. Not every job has a potential woman hire.
Incidentally, measuring the impact of implicit bias in hiring is simple. There is ample evidence suggesting that a traditionally feminine name on a resume substantially lowers the chance of a callback from an employer all else being equal (2) (3) (4).
Incidentally, measuring the impact of implicit bias in hiring is simple. There is ample evidence suggesting that a traditionally feminine name on a resume substantially lowers the chance of a callback from an employer all else being equal (2) (3) (4).
1.https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2014/05/05/more-women-than-men-earn-the-federal-minimum-wage/
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
Wait, you edited your comment. Let me address those new points, starting with the GDP deflator.
For what it's worth, the term "deflator" refers to a method by which inflation is calculated. As it is used in the study, the consumer deflator refers to measures to correct for inflation in consumption data, and the producer deflator refers to measures to correct for inflation in production data.
As for your first argument, the study compares a percentage increase in productivity with subsequent wage gain. They find that for supervisory positions tend to have a one-to-one increase in wage per percentage increase in productivity. This is not the case for about 60% of the workforce. To calculate the net increase in productivity, the study relies on the net domestic product divided by hours worked to calculate percentage increases in worker output and compare that to compensation. You seem to care about the product being made or service being provided. The BLS data from my previous post delineates disparities by industry and finds that certain economic sectors suffer more from the gap than others, but for Retail, Information, Manufacturing, and a sundry of other sectors, this discrepancy is true (1). If you want micro level data, here is a list of the 25 most underpaid jobs per the market value calculated by Glassdoor (a job-searching website) (2).
But again, my point was that the supposed private-sector solution for solving homelessness was not a possibility. There is plenty of data that finds other explanations for this discrepancy, and I'm not refuting that insomuch as I am documenting that in some instances, private industries do not pay for the full worth of their workforce, which makes some jobs unattractive to potential employees. Compounding this issue is the fact that homeless people cannot pay for rehabilitation.
But again, my point was that the supposed private-sector solution for solving homelessness was not a possibility. There is plenty of data that finds other explanations for this discrepancy, and I'm not refuting that insomuch as I am documenting that in some instances, private industries do not pay for the full worth of their workforce, which makes some jobs unattractive to potential employees. Compounding this issue is the fact that homeless people cannot pay for rehabilitation.
Sources
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
So, the product is what is important. Okay then. You like your computer, right? The people who produced that computer probably didn't get compensated the full worth of their labor. The same could be said for 60% of the workforce. That's my point. This has nothing to do with taxes. I made that argument to prove that the private sector fails to compensate people enough for a hypothetical "homeless rehab program" run entirely by businesses that Athias seemed to have posed (although, he only obliquely referred to the private sector solving homelessness, so maybe that's not accurate). Sure, it isn't the strongest point (the fact that the homeless cannot pay for such rehabilitation is likely more important,) and the gap is not as extreme as previously thought, but nonetheless, it exists.
Incidentally, taking any argument out of context is pedantic.
Incidentally, taking any argument out of context is pedantic.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
You are conflating the bottom line of the company with the productivity of the individual workers. Stock prices can increase via stock buybacks and policies that endear the company to investors. 70% of Aon's staff suffered a paycut to preserve dividends to stockholders (1). Productivity, then, is probably going to decline as beleaguered workers start firing up their resume and looking elsewhere for comparable work with a higher salary. Yet, investors might think twice about dumping the stock because their dividend is preserved, and in the ill economy in which we live (figuratively and literally) it's surprising that no layoffs are occurring . Fluctuations in stock have also been attributed to top-level management decisions, government bailouts, speculation driving up prices of a particular stock, etc. This might not be true in the long run, as the economic output of a company may sink, preventing future dividends, but in the short term, stocks are not indicative of business success, nor are they a fair predictor of worker productivity. In the long run, it's not true either. If a company employed legions of quality workers, but continues to struggle due to failures at the top level of management, then stock prices will markedly depreciate in the long term even if the workers are effervescent and industrious. If a company has a proven track record of financial success and eluding folly, then the price of their stock may increase even in the face of layoffs (which, as you can probably imagine, decreases productivity of an overall company and individual workers who are beset by financial worries). Many a company with venerated status have been able to pull their stock prices out of a rut with layoffs, with AOL, Hewlett-Packard, and Cisco being among them (2).
In summation, the productivity of a workforce is integral to business success and can drive up stock prices, all else being equal. But, other business decisions have an outsized impact on the stock prices, illustrious companies can drive up stock prices in the long run despite seemingly passing the event horizon into business collapse, and numerous other factors play into stock prices.
Besides, this isn't really my point. My point was that, on average, wages lag behind productivity in about 60% of the workforce (i.e. non-supervisor and production roles).
In summation, the productivity of a workforce is integral to business success and can drive up stock prices, all else being equal. But, other business decisions have an outsized impact on the stock prices, illustrious companies can drive up stock prices in the long run despite seemingly passing the event horizon into business collapse, and numerous other factors play into stock prices.
Besides, this isn't really my point. My point was that, on average, wages lag behind productivity in about 60% of the workforce (i.e. non-supervisor and production roles).
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@sadolite
2 of the studies included in the analysis concluded that "smokers were 43 per cent more likely to see their disease progress than those who had never smoked." 6 found no notable difference, which is not equivalent to discovering a causal factor, but it does not prove that smoking decreases the chance of dying from the virus. Also, the studies had widely differing sample sizes (some less than 50 people) and the published results aren't conclusive. The 41-patient Wuhan study only measured who ended up in ICU, and yes, none of ICU patients were smokers. But, it should be noted that the study only employed data from 3 smokers. Let me ask you this: Is it possible that three obese, yet young people in otherwise good health, elude being placed in ICU? Obviously so, since obesity is only one factor. Another study utilized for the meta analysis comprising of 191 subjects only included data for 11 smokers. 6% of the subjects were smokers, 9% of the smoking population died, and 4% survived. Does this seem conclusive given the sample size? Also, a few other studies included in the meta analysis find that smoking is an moderate predictor of mortality as a result of contracting the virus. One study with 1,099 subjects found that a significantly higher percentage of severe cases happened to be smokers. Analyzing the first 5 studies included in the UCL meta analysis, researchers from the University of Crete and Harvard suggested that smokers are less likely to contract the disease, but more likely to suffer complications should they get Covid-19 (1). Irrespective of the study's results, it also must be determined to what extent self-reported smoking data is accurate. It's impossible to know how alleged non-smokers were telling the truth due to social desirability bias (when people lie during self-reports due to the inextricable stigma attached to what is being polled, which in this case, would be smoking.) Underestimated smoking data caused by a dearth of accurate self-reports has precedent (2).
If you don't trust me, listen to the UCL team behind the study:
"We would therefore caution against drawing any conclusion as to whether smokers are at increased risk of SARS-CoV-2 infection at this early stage."
Here is something else from the Daily Mail site:
"The authors concluded there is a lack of evidence that meets a high standard to definitely say whether or not smokers are at higher risk of catching the coronavirus, or having poor outcomes."
At this point, accurately depicting how strong of a contributing factor smoking is to suffering from Covid-19 is not entirely possible per the admission of the authors. It's entirely possible that nicotine has preventative qualities, but it far from proven, and smoking seems like the worse possible way to ingest nicotine. Surely, the patches would be preferable, yeah? I don't doubt that nicotine has the potential for inhibiting Covid-19, but there needs to be more conclusive evidence before this theory is elevated to fact if this meta analysis is to be believed.
Here is something else from the Daily Mail site:
"The authors concluded there is a lack of evidence that meets a high standard to definitely say whether or not smokers are at higher risk of catching the coronavirus, or having poor outcomes."
At this point, accurately depicting how strong of a contributing factor smoking is to suffering from Covid-19 is not entirely possible per the admission of the authors. It's entirely possible that nicotine has preventative qualities, but it far from proven, and smoking seems like the worse possible way to ingest nicotine. Surely, the patches would be preferable, yeah? I don't doubt that nicotine has the potential for inhibiting Covid-19, but there needs to be more conclusive evidence before this theory is elevated to fact if this meta analysis is to be believed.
Sources
Created:
-->
@oromagi
Yeah. I tried to read the book, but I found The Stranger to be much more compelling.
Created:
-->
@Singularity
Atlas Shrugged? That's strange. I think Camus uses the myth as sort of a centerpiece for his philosophical ruminations and ideas. I don't think it has a plot per se. That said, I might be confusing it with something else. I do remember reading The Stranger by Camus and liking it.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Athias
There is a productivity wage gap, but it's not as dire as your references make it appear once context is considered. James Sherk's report offers said context.
Sure, the EPI data was flawed. I'll buy that. But one of the criticisms of the EPI report is chiefly the point that I am trying to make. When we are concerning ourselves with non-supervisory and production jobs, there is a discrepancy between pay and productivity (1). The BLS data also showed this. Would this affect employment prospects? I would imagine so if the jobs in question are subject to this discrepancy.
"Mental illness" (we can discuss the merits of its classification as an "illness" in another venue) can range anywhere from depression or anxiety to schizophrenia. So the cost of rehabilitation would be heavily contingent on the scope of mental illness. The cost of taking this task on would also be reflected in compensation. And of course, I won't ignore the competition of the non mentally-ill. But state-sponsored programs for homeless rehabilitation are more like detention centers--a conclusion I've drawn mostly using anecdotal evidence.
State-sponsored vocational rehabilitation programs are far from detention centers. I don't know exactly what program you refer to when you describe homeless rehabilitation as such either. But, I think that we can agree that private enterprises would likely never want to create a holistic "homeless rehab" program to get people placed into jobs. The homeless can't pay for it.
Don't underestimate the detriments of depression or anxiety. They cost employers (2) and are major predictors of gainful employment (3). The cost of depression alone is pegged to be $210 billion dollars per year (8). Employers worry about the cost of accommodating mentally ill people, cohesion with other coworkers, and absenteeism (4). Those with depression are often blamed for being unproductive when compared to their peers, too (4).
Don't underestimate the detriments of depression or anxiety. They cost employers (2) and are major predictors of gainful employment (3). The cost of depression alone is pegged to be $210 billion dollars per year (8). Employers worry about the cost of accommodating mentally ill people, cohesion with other coworkers, and absenteeism (4). Those with depression are often blamed for being unproductive when compared to their peers, too (4).
There's also the issue of severity. Homeless people are more likely to be victimized by sexual predators and perpetrators of assault. These traumas tend to worsen mental health issues. A 2015 HUD study concluded that 25% of the homeless population had a severe mental illness using head counts from 2015 (or roughly 140,000 people) (5). Other studies tend to conclude that a higher proportion of the homeless population suffers from extreme mental illness. My original post also shows that there were other barriers to employment too, such as incarceration and persistent stigma against homeless people. Image is also a problem. If someone showed up to an interview for any position, they would be expected to look somewhat presentable. Without showers or clean clothes, the homeless cannot meet this expectation 100% of the time.
Manual jobs are always in high demand, and without a price control to stifle what would otherwise be available job opportunities, employers and firms would have more incentive to hire members of the homeless demographic.
The homeless population is aging and may not be suited to manual labor given the wear-and-tear of age and poverty that make them more prone to on-the-job accidents (6). Strapping young people are more likely to take these jobs and outperform their older counterparts. Plus, the homeless are precluded from the workforce for quite a few reasons that my original post highlighted and that I've already written above. These don't suddenly vanish because manual labor jobs have lower entry-level requirements than other sectors. Also, the homeless aren't competing with no-one. What about undocumented immigrants and penal labor? What about sheltered workshops that are allowed to pay their employees sub-minimum wages (and often no more than a few cents an hour) (7)?
Your reference mentions a select group of "cronies" who, by function of their economic practices, are not private. Whenever public money is involved, they can no longer be considered private, only extensions of the apparatus which allows for said crony functions.
Are purely un-subsidized profit-generating institutions going to spend their limited resources rehabilitating the homeless when there are plenty of other highly qualified candidates for jobs? Who will pay for these rehabilitative institutions if they do exist? The homeless? If the private companies are interested in rehabilitating the homeless, they would have already shown this support through their investment.
The state already does this--or at least, it claims to do this. From your own observation, can you argue that it has had a substantial impact?
I'll put it this way. I would not have been able to pay for higher education without Voc Rehab. A certain member of my family would have never landed a job without Voc Rehab's support, and he is now in the process of being promoted to a full-time position. Finding jobs in FL with a diagnosis is hard. I'll say that and no more.
I think it's pertinent to consider the morality of the means rather than the morality of the ends.
I concur. I think most people would agree that homelessness is something that should be solved. I don't share this particular view that the homeless are simply unwilling to be employed or that they are at fault for the situation they find themselves in. In the words of Malachi Constant:
"I was a victim of a series of accidents, as are we all."
Can we really control for the effect the private sector would have on the rehabilitation of the homeless when government oversight, regulation, and downright incompetence remains a constant factor?
I don't know what specific laws would prevent companies from starting businesses that served the homeless besides the obvious fact that doing so would be economic suicide. There is no profit in providing services unless they are paid for, and the only way that can happen is through people's hard-earned dollars. I know of few homeless people who would be able to buy their way into these programs and eventually pay for a residence. This is the reason that the public sector is championing the rehabilitation movement, private businesses don't want a part in them, and that's not necessarily bad, but "thems the breaks."
I hope I don't come off as disrespectful.
I hope I don't come off as disrespectful.
Created:
-->
@Singularity
I meant to type "mystical" not "magical."
In any case, I heard it was interesting, but I have only read snippets from it.
In any case, I heard it was interesting, but I have only read snippets from it.
Created:
-->
@Singularity
It's a book about a magical Greek figure which was written by Albert Camus.
Created:
-->
@Singularity
The cited reason as to why the exhibit PTSD-like symptoms is due to the content they moderate typically delving into sordid territory. That is the nature of their job. The reason they may be "overzealous" could just be a sign that they are new. I don't think assigning blame to these folks, especially given the job requirements, is accurate. Sifting through post after post looking for ban-worthy offenses seems like a real world Myth of Sisyphus. If you're interested about the working conditions of these moderators, I give you this:
Created:
-->
@Singularity
Irrespective of wrong and right, it is a security issue. At one point, there were people leaving the West to join the ranks of ISIS, which runs counter to security in this nation and elsewhere. But in any case, under the new law proposed, any sort of political expression could be subject to draconian intervention.
The video was informative, but the people assume that Google, YouTube, and these publishers are able to sufficiently weed out actual violators of their terms & conditions. Can they though? Moderators for YouTube are required to sign a waiver which states:
"I understand the content I will be reviewing may be disturbing. It is possible that reviewing such content may impact my mental health, and it could even lead to post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) (1)."
Many Facebook mods are developing PTSD-like symptoms, so this is not a hypothetical (3).
How many do you think want to work as moderators? What about job turnover? How many people left this site as mods because they couldn't handle on-site B.S?
Now, it may be possible to rely on algorithms to detect content violations, but adopting this sort of stringent system may lead to false-positives. YouTube may have inadvertently caused many LGBT content creators to lose monetization purely due to the fact that the issues discussed in the video are LGBT (2). The YouTuber being interviewed suspects that the reason for this removal is the use of the word "trans" in video descriptions. That's likely wrong, but YouTube admitted that it relied on "machine learning (2)."
So, if there are no adequate methods by which we can moderate millions upon millions of videos, search results, etc. would it be fair to deem publishers complicit in the violations committed by a particular user? And, if they are unable to currently enforce their own rules, how would making them enforce new ones dealing with neutrality be any better? No political party can be precluded under the law being proposed, so massive websites, (which are specifically targeted in the bill, so DART will be safe,) will need to drastically scale up moderation to maintain homeostasis betwixt the right and left, (and presumably other ideologies as well, but let's be honest, this is another sordid partisan saber rattling competition. Maybe one side is more justified than another, but it remains the same carnival of pain regardless.)
I'm not saying that the current system is 100% fair, but the alternative being proposed doesn't seem too much better.
Sources
1.https://www.bbc.com/news/technology-51245616
Many Facebook mods are developing PTSD-like symptoms, so this is not a hypothetical (3).
How many do you think want to work as moderators? What about job turnover? How many people left this site as mods because they couldn't handle on-site B.S?
Now, it may be possible to rely on algorithms to detect content violations, but adopting this sort of stringent system may lead to false-positives. YouTube may have inadvertently caused many LGBT content creators to lose monetization purely due to the fact that the issues discussed in the video are LGBT (2). The YouTuber being interviewed suspects that the reason for this removal is the use of the word "trans" in video descriptions. That's likely wrong, but YouTube admitted that it relied on "machine learning (2)."
So, if there are no adequate methods by which we can moderate millions upon millions of videos, search results, etc. would it be fair to deem publishers complicit in the violations committed by a particular user? And, if they are unable to currently enforce their own rules, how would making them enforce new ones dealing with neutrality be any better? No political party can be precluded under the law being proposed, so massive websites, (which are specifically targeted in the bill, so DART will be safe,) will need to drastically scale up moderation to maintain homeostasis betwixt the right and left, (and presumably other ideologies as well, but let's be honest, this is another sordid partisan saber rattling competition. Maybe one side is more justified than another, but it remains the same carnival of pain regardless.)
I'm not saying that the current system is 100% fair, but the alternative being proposed doesn't seem too much better.
Sources
1.https://www.bbc.com/news/technology-51245616
Created:
-->
@Singularity
A publisher is just that - a repository of published information. It has nothing to do with censorship or the like (at least, the designation of a publisher anyway.) Under section 230, YouTube is immune from laws targeting user-generated content. They don't oscillate between the two categorizations you list. Moreover, the very fact that they are a "publisher" means that they are not responsible for user generated content and precludes them from lawsuits about, for example, a rude comment made by someone on the site that could be perceived as defamation. This doesn't mean that they cannot moderate. In fact, moderation is often needed to shut down social media accounts run by ISIS recruiters and the like. Whether it was morally permissible to take down this YouTube video, to me anyway, is a wholly uninteresting debate that I've seen played too many times.
My argument is not that YouTube moderation is benign, nor do I intend to enter into an argument concerning its alleged censorship. Publishers are simply afforded rights under the current law that does not hold them responsible for the actions of others that contribute to the site, nor does law suggest that their moderation be neutral. In the example I mentioned, the issue was not that someone was getting sued for making rude comments, it's that the website, Wikipedia, was taken to court for the comments of particular posters on the site. That had nothing to do with being a "public forum." Wikipedia clearly is not one.
Also, the law that supposedly changes things for the better by making moderation impartial does no such thing. In the text of the bill, the way by which 230 rights are stripped is patently deleterious, potentially chilling free speech further.
"Under his bill, to refuse certification, the FTC need not show that the platform actively engaged in moderation practices designed to hurt a viewpoint, but rather that its practices “disproportionately restrict[] or promote[] access to, or the availability of, information from a political party, political candidate, or political viewpoint.” This means that, if a platform wants to moderate user content, it will have to take a rigid stance against all content so as to ensure that the FTC decides, by clear and convincing evidence, that the platform did not moderate it in a politically biased manner. In other words, legitimate speech — conservative and liberal alike — will suffer because platforms will worry that failing to remove questionable content may appear to disproportionately affect a viewpoint (source 2 of previous post)."
The chief concern is not about biased moderation, but whether, practices disproportionately restrict access to the availability of a political ideology or viewpoint, even odious ones, but we won't get into that. This will lead to major sites undergoing hyper-vigilant moderation to guarantee that both sides are represented on all issues, lest they are subject to this addendum to section 230. So, will we have quotas? Will only so many conservative or liberal viewpoints be allowed to be expressed? This distinctly reminds me of the Fairness Doctrine, which mandated news media cover "all sides" of an issue, which led to less issues being discussed on news shows according to the FCC review of the doctrine (1).
Sources
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
Section 230 states the following:
"No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider."
For example, Google is not liable to any of its search results. In all likelihood, there would probably be more, not less, moderation to guarantee that information displayed in search results conforms to the law. Think of all the illegal material on YouTube, Google, and other repositories for information a la social media sites like Reddit. Think about websites that allow for comment sections and user-made content. People in charge of these websites are currently not responsible for every iota of user-generated content, but sans 230 protections, we might see a spark of zealous moderating to defend against defamation claims. Wikipedia has suffered from those in the past, and 230 protections were an integral defense against spurious litigation which targeted the website for comments made by users which said rude things about the plaintiff (1).
Also, the method by which "bias" is determined via Hawley's bill is problematic.
This loophole might not be passed in the current state.
Sources
Created:
https://www.bbc.com/news/technology-51658341
According to a high court, the assertion that people have the right to express themselves freely on YouTube without moderation is fallacious. It isn't a "public forum," it's a private company. The ultimately have jurisdiction. I'm not saying it's right. It's just the status quo.
According to a high court, the assertion that people have the right to express themselves freely on YouTube without moderation is fallacious. It isn't a "public forum," it's a private company. The ultimately have jurisdiction. I'm not saying it's right. It's just the status quo.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Athias
Maybe, but productivity rarely matches with wages. Often, people are paid less than their total worth to company's bottom line (1) (2). In fact, the productivity-wage gap is growing, not shrinking (2). In theory, companies would compensate their employees in equal measure to their usefulness, but this isn't always the case. Also, how would these companies that rehabilitate the homeless make profit? Would they take a portion of their clientele's paycheck to pay for services to treat mental illnesses and drug addiction which often holds people back from getting jobs? How about job placement and shadowing opportunities? Non-profit organizations might be able to help, but do we have enough of these social organizations to aid those who are homeless? Also, businesses leverage their money and influence to keep laws that target homeless people on the books (3). Why would they want to help the homeless?
In reality, there are probably a bevy of services that could help homeless people, for a price. If the homeless are unable to pay for it, then government involvement in some respect, be it federal, state, or municipal, might be called for.
I've heard the argument that perhaps solving homelessness should not be a moral imperative for the US, and maybe that's true. If we want to though, there is more to do than simply relegate this to the private businesses with no oversight. Clearly, if it were profitable, profitable and effective startups would already be addressing homelessness, right?
Sources
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@skittlez09
Man, now I feel like a dick. Sorry about that.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Athias
Fair, but I don't think necessarily that private institutions, unless being nudged vigorously by the government, will want to rehabilitate homeless people so they can work. There isn't too much profit in that.
That's just my thoughts though. I'd love to continue this conversation, but where I'm at, it's late, and I already spent too much time on these last two responses.
That's just my thoughts though. I'd love to continue this conversation, but where I'm at, it's late, and I already spent too much time on these last two responses.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
The crux of the theory you provided is that governments tend to act with impunity because it is an inherent quality of government. I think this understanding is valuable (often true even,) but not 100% accurate. Eliminating the bulk of SNAP abuse is more than just a "fluke," it took the concerted efforts of federal and local authorities to prevent fraud and punish defrauders. I think that the pervasive idea of inefficient governance is due to universal media coverage of government failures with scant mention of government success. What is invisible to most people is the state governments which pass 129 times the bills and resolutions that Capitol Hill does (1). Some of these underground bills surface to national media attention, especially when they elicit disgust, but most elude our attention unless we are personally involved.
I guess what I'm trying to get at is this: the theory is immeasurable. We have no real way of quantifying government "successes" vs. "waste" (especially since everyone's ideas about government waste differ drastically.)
Also, what is risk? If government is risk averse, surely, in your examples provided, they would calculate the risk of 100 people defecating in public, yes? Would they then try to provide them housing to avoid possible contamination? What about issues like the fact that there is no compulsory mandatory vaccination policy on the federal level? Why does the government not act risk averse when it comes to protecting people from possible measles outbreaks? In fact, I would say the government takes tremendous risk when it comes to foreign intervention and stimulus packages. It's jeopardizing tax dollars.
I guess what I'm trying to get at is this: the theory is immeasurable. We have no real way of quantifying government "successes" vs. "waste" (especially since everyone's ideas about government waste differ drastically.)
Also, what is risk? If government is risk averse, surely, in your examples provided, they would calculate the risk of 100 people defecating in public, yes? Would they then try to provide them housing to avoid possible contamination? What about issues like the fact that there is no compulsory mandatory vaccination policy on the federal level? Why does the government not act risk averse when it comes to protecting people from possible measles outbreaks? In fact, I would say the government takes tremendous risk when it comes to foreign intervention and stimulus packages. It's jeopardizing tax dollars.
My issue with Alec's plan is actually similar to your objection though. Setting the minimum wage for thousands of workers at 60k a year, (if that is what his plan entails, but I literally thought he was just going to demand that poor people "get better jobs," which is patently ludicrous if the best jobs they can find happen to be minimum wage,) is endemically flawed.
That said, the plan also includes a frankly bizarre stats. For example, retirees are only supposed to spend 12k on housing under the tabs about how seniors can pay this new tax regime. In actuality, they pay roughly $16k, while Social Security beneficiaries collect about $17,500 per year (2). Also, there doesn't seem to be much flexibility. Insurance, for instance, varies greatly by a person's use of medical services, the state that they live in, and other complicating factors that make the $12,000 dollar a year allotment to not be representative of everyone's needs, especially in the face of medical inflation driving up prices for medical procedures and co-pays. Also, banking on 750 million people moving to the US is pretty far-fetched and risky. I mean, I could go on, but dissecting this plan would take years if we are to determine its full effect. I do like the work put into it though.
That said, the plan also includes a frankly bizarre stats. For example, retirees are only supposed to spend 12k on housing under the tabs about how seniors can pay this new tax regime. In actuality, they pay roughly $16k, while Social Security beneficiaries collect about $17,500 per year (2). Also, there doesn't seem to be much flexibility. Insurance, for instance, varies greatly by a person's use of medical services, the state that they live in, and other complicating factors that make the $12,000 dollar a year allotment to not be representative of everyone's needs, especially in the face of medical inflation driving up prices for medical procedures and co-pays. Also, banking on 750 million people moving to the US is pretty far-fetched and risky. I mean, I could go on, but dissecting this plan would take years if we are to determine its full effect. I do like the work put into it though.
Sources
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@skittlez09
Oh, if it's for that, it's not a problem. I liked the poem though
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Athias
Thank you for clarifying, I do agree. Methinks a better approach would involve public-private partnerships. Vocational rehabilitation programs are also useful (as someone who uses it, I can say this from personal experience, but quality of service differs widely across states and counselors.) While I hate to admit it, a granular, piecemeal approach might be the best option to aid the homeless. Since monetary allocations to help the homeless are often determined by self-reported data, it might be time to rectify issues in stat collecting too. I just don't think a swathing system could possibly account for everything. A series of granular, piecemeal reforms might be preferable.
Thoughts?
Thoughts?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
I buy that there is government incompetence, and that often the government does not tackle said incompetence due to a misunderstanding of risks, but clearly there is more nuance to the issue because governments have been lifting restrictions on Covid-19, passing laws regarding public defecation (as well as other laws that are less meritorious,) and passing measures to prevent fraud. It's true that the SNAP program was at one point inundated with fraud, but with tracked EBT cards requiring PINs and government documents, abuse of the program has dwindled to about 2% (1).
Also, investigators for the Social Security Administration have been able to detect and cease fraudulent activity worth millions of dollars, so it's not like the government is doing nothing about fraud (2). In fact, many (if not most) government departments rely on investigative bodies to track fraud and malfeasance (some, like HUD, struggle more than others, but that is likely due to a lack of manpower and funding.)
Government can be productive, but the compliance of multifarious parties with differing goals and constituencies need to converge for many decisions to be made. It sounds impossible, but it definitely is.
Also, investigators for the Social Security Administration have been able to detect and cease fraudulent activity worth millions of dollars, so it's not like the government is doing nothing about fraud (2). In fact, many (if not most) government departments rely on investigative bodies to track fraud and malfeasance (some, like HUD, struggle more than others, but that is likely due to a lack of manpower and funding.)
Government can be productive, but the compliance of multifarious parties with differing goals and constituencies need to converge for many decisions to be made. It sounds impossible, but it definitely is.
2.https://oig.ssa.gov/semiannual-reports/fall-2016 (should be something to open up a pdf)
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Athias
I don't think its necessarily wrong to allow the homeless to seek jobs or receive training. I don't think that any employer would ever put them in a position that pays substantially though, so displacing high-wage labor might not be as big a problem (although I think you posed that as a hypothetical), but it is something to consider (especially given the inverse relationship between full employment and inflation, but that is another issue entirely). I'm not saying that the plan isn't ambitious, in fact, that might be the downfall of it. It doesn't take into effect numerous factors playing into employment or the unique situation the homeless find themselves in. In fact, as much as the intention is to save money, I think that expanding programs to employ every single homeless person would not be offset by eliminating SNAP. Homeless employment is something that we should strive for, but its not as simple as portrayed.
So yeah, I concur.
So yeah, I concur.
Created:
Posted in:
The rhyming pattern is kind of simple, which is fine, but also a tad bit juvenile (again, not saying I could do any better.)
A few stanzas might break rhythmic flow, and while this is not structured to be poetry written aloud, it definitely should be looked at (I would say, anyway.)
As happiness becomes vague"
I think that if the second sentence had another syllable or two, it would come off as more natural.
I do like the abstract lyrics too, it just might lose some people who are reading it.
I do like the abstract lyrics too, it just might lose some people who are reading it.
You avoid a lot of commonplace cliches, which is also good. Some of the metaphors are clumsily used though, like describing something as a "challenging videogame."
That said, it is interesting. I think the title should be "Reflections on a Gloomy Day." But again, that's just my subjective opinion. The only writing I do besides political stuff is short stories, and I loathe to share them in a public forum because they will probably be piddled on.
That said, it is interesting. I think the title should be "Reflections on a Gloomy Day." But again, that's just my subjective opinion. The only writing I do besides political stuff is short stories, and I loathe to share them in a public forum because they will probably be piddled on.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
Tag me so I can respond.
The data I provided is an average though. I'm sure there are others that can reap more from the system depending on the state, other requirements etc.
The data I provided is an average though. I'm sure there are others that can reap more from the system depending on the state, other requirements etc.
Created: