Comments on: “Inequality” and Fairness http://cafehayek.com/2009/10/inequality-and-fairness.html where orders emerge Mon, 16 Jan 2012 02:06:33 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v= By: Mike http://cafehayek.com/2009/10/inequality-and-fairness.html/comment-page-1#comment-186580 Mike Tue, 20 Oct 2009 19:13:00 +0000 http://cafehayek.com/?p=6911#comment-186580 Can I ask for a link to your statistics? I'm also curious why the last update you have is from 1995? In any case, I think Block did a pretty good job answering your points. The first being low-skill earners - the women of the house have other priorities other than just working, as you have also pointed out. The question I have for you is, why would the family burden only hurt high skill workers? If I have a 50lb weight on my back while I walk and someone else doesn't, who's going to walk faster? Now, a more appropriate comparison would be to compare females without a family to working men. I don't have the statistics off the top of my head, but I'm going to take Block at his word and say they're even. The second Block doesn't answer directly, but it's not hard to find big problems with your statistics (or lack thereof). Annual reviews can be, and most likely are, subjective. Not to mention, highly variable, and subject to the same claims of sexism. What would stop a sexist employer from understating a female’s performance? Even with all my complaints, I'd still be interested in seeing how the statistics corroborate to the evidence, so if you have it please post. But again, this leads me to believe that still, the more appropriate comparison is to compare single working woman to their male counterparts. Anyway, if Block doesn’t convince you how about Milton Friedman’s take? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bZA1Q_1t1E0 Can I ask for a link to your statistics? I’m also curious why the last update you have is from 1995?

In any case, I think Block did a pretty good job answering your points. The first being low-skill earners – the women of the house have other priorities other than just working, as you have also pointed out. The question I have for you is, why would the family burden only hurt high skill workers? If I have a 50lb weight on my back while I walk and someone else doesn’t, who’s going to walk faster? Now, a more appropriate comparison would be to compare females without a family to working men. I don’t have the statistics off the top of my head, but I’m going to take Block at his word and say they’re even.

The second Block doesn’t answer directly, but it’s not hard to find big problems with your statistics (or lack thereof). Annual reviews can be, and most likely are, subjective. Not to mention, highly variable, and subject to the same claims of sexism. What would stop a sexist employer from understating a female’s performance? Even with all my complaints, I’d still be interested in seeing how the statistics corroborate to the evidence, so if you have it please post. But again, this leads me to believe that still, the more appropriate comparison is to compare single working woman to their male counterparts.

Anyway, if Block doesn’t convince you how about Milton Friedman’s take?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bZA1Q_1t1E0

]]> By: Mike http://cafehayek.com/2009/10/inequality-and-fairness.html/comment-page-1#comment-186581 Mike Tue, 20 Oct 2009 19:13:00 +0000 http://cafehayek.com/?p=6911#comment-186581 Can I ask for a link to your statistics? I'm also curious why the last update you have is from 1995? In any case, I think Block did a pretty good job answering your points. The first being low-skill earners - the women of the house have other priorities other than just working, as you have also pointed out. The question I have for you is, why would the family burden only hurt high skill workers? If I have a 50lb weight on my back while I walk and someone else doesn't, who's going to walk faster? Now, a more appropriate comparison would be to compare females without a family to working men. I don't have the statistics off the top of my head, but I'm going to take Block at his word and say they're even. The second Block doesn't answer directly, but it's not hard to find big problems with your statistics (or lack thereof). Annual reviews can be, and most likely are, subjective. Not to mention, highly variable, and subject to the same claims of sexism. What would stop a sexist employer from understating a female’s performance? Even with all my complaints, I'd still be interested in seeing how the statistics corroborate to the evidence, so if you have it please post. But again, this leads me to believe that still, the more appropriate comparison is to compare single working woman to their male counterparts. Anyway, if Block doesn’t convince you how about Milton Friedman’s take? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bZA1Q_1t1E0 Can I ask for a link to your statistics? I’m also curious why the last update you have is from 1995?

In any case, I think Block did a pretty good job answering your points. The first being low-skill earners – the women of the house have other priorities other than just working, as you have also pointed out. The question I have for you is, why would the family burden only hurt high skill workers? If I have a 50lb weight on my back while I walk and someone else doesn’t, who’s going to walk faster? Now, a more appropriate comparison would be to compare females without a family to working men. I don’t have the statistics off the top of my head, but I’m going to take Block at his word and say they’re even.

The second Block doesn’t answer directly, but it’s not hard to find big problems with your statistics (or lack thereof). Annual reviews can be, and most likely are, subjective. Not to mention, highly variable, and subject to the same claims of sexism. What would stop a sexist employer from understating a female’s performance? Even with all my complaints, I’d still be interested in seeing how the statistics corroborate to the evidence, so if you have it please post. But again, this leads me to believe that still, the more appropriate comparison is to compare single working woman to their male counterparts.

Anyway, if Block doesn’t convince you how about Milton Friedman’s take?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bZA1Q_1t1E0

]]> By: Mike http://cafehayek.com/2009/10/inequality-and-fairness.html/comment-page-1#comment-186579 Mike Tue, 20 Oct 2009 19:13:00 +0000 http://cafehayek.com/?p=6911#comment-186579 Can I ask for a link to your statistics? I'm also curious why the last update you have is from 1995? In any case, I think Block did a pretty good job answering your points. The first being low-skill earners - the women of the house have other priorities other than just working, as you have also pointed out. The question I have for you is, why would the family burden only hurt high skill workers? If I have a 50lb weight on my back while I walk and someone else doesn't, who's going to walk faster? Now, a more appropriate comparison would be to compare females without a family to working men. I don't have the statistics off the top of my head, but I'm going to take Block at his word and say they're even. The second Block doesn't answer directly, but it's not hard to find big problems with your statistics (or lack thereof). Annual reviews can be, and most likely are, subjective. Not to mention, highly variable, and subject to the same claims of sexism. What would stop a sexist employer from understating a female’s performance? Even with all my complaints, I'd still be interested in seeing how the statistics corroborate to the evidence, so if you have it please post. But again, this leads me to believe that still, the more appropriate comparison is to compare single working woman to their male counterparts. Anyway, if Block doesn’t convince you how about Milton Friedman’s take? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bZA1Q_1t1E0 Can I ask for a link to your statistics? I’m also curious why the last update you have is from 1995?

In any case, I think Block did a pretty good job answering your points. The first being low-skill earners – the women of the house have other priorities other than just working, as you have also pointed out. The question I have for you is, why would the family burden only hurt high skill workers? If I have a 50lb weight on my back while I walk and someone else doesn’t, who’s going to walk faster? Now, a more appropriate comparison would be to compare females without a family to working men. I don’t have the statistics off the top of my head, but I’m going to take Block at his word and say they’re even.

The second Block doesn’t answer directly, but it’s not hard to find big problems with your statistics (or lack thereof). Annual reviews can be, and most likely are, subjective. Not to mention, highly variable, and subject to the same claims of sexism. What would stop a sexist employer from understating a female’s performance? Even with all my complaints, I’d still be interested in seeing how the statistics corroborate to the evidence, so if you have it please post. But again, this leads me to believe that still, the more appropriate comparison is to compare single working woman to their male counterparts.

Anyway, if Block doesn’t convince you how about Milton Friedman’s take?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bZA1Q_1t1E0

]]> By: gappy http://cafehayek.com/2009/10/inequality-and-fairness.html/comment-page-1#comment-186331 gappy Mon, 19 Oct 2009 14:40:00 +0000 http://cafehayek.com/?p=6911#comment-186331 I remember Block's argument, because it caused controversy a while back. The argument (which is laid out more succintly here: http://www.lewrockwell.com/block/block112.html) is that females are not equal to men on the workplace because the do the lion's share of the work in the family and because they specialize. I find this argument built on very, very thin evidence, e.g. lack of price differentials at the beginning of careers. If you take this as "proof", we have very different standards of evidence. To test his theory, he could look at the differentials for low-skilled jobs (where effort, or hours worked, is a good proxy for performance). As it happens, the wage differential still exceeded 23% in 1995. Or, one could look at the wage differential in professional jobs in which an estimate of performance is available (e.g., annual reviews), and test whether there is a differential for like performance in the same role for different genders. None of this is present in Block's presentation. I am not saying that Block is entirely wrong, just that he makes a very poor case and that available data don't entirely support it. In the current state, this is a rationalization of a fact that is not in accord with the libertarian dogma that *every* agreement that is voluntary and non-coercive is thereby occurring in the best of possible worlds. I remember Block’s argument, because it caused controversy a while back. The argument (which is laid out more succintly here: http://www.lewrockwell.com/block/block112.html) is that females are not equal to men on the workplace because the do the lion’s share of the work in the family and because they specialize. I find this argument built on very, very thin evidence, e.g. lack of price differentials at the beginning of careers. If you take this as “proof”, we have very different standards of evidence. To test his theory, he could look at the differentials for low-skilled jobs (where effort, or hours worked, is a good proxy for performance). As it happens, the wage differential still exceeded 23% in 1995. Or, one could look at the wage differential in professional jobs in which an estimate of performance is available (e.g., annual reviews), and test whether there is a differential for like performance in the same role for different genders. None of this is present in Block’s presentation. I am not saying that Block is entirely wrong, just that he makes a very poor case and that available data don’t entirely support it. In the current state, this is a rationalization of a fact that is not in accord with the libertarian dogma that *every* agreement that is voluntary and non-coercive is thereby occurring in the best of possible worlds.

]]> By: rollie http://cafehayek.com/2009/10/inequality-and-fairness.html/comment-page-1#comment-186222 rollie Sat, 17 Oct 2009 08:30:00 +0000 http://cafehayek.com/?p=6911#comment-186222 And herein lies the beauty of it all. Life would be a nightmare if all our abilities were equal... or if we treated them as such. And herein lies the beauty of it all. Life would be a nightmare if all our abilities were equal… or if we treated them as such.

]]>