- Jan 3, 2014
- Reaction score
- Political Leaning
It seems to manifest itself more apparently in the labor market under our form of Capitalism.How does inequality before the law persist?
Throughout much of the 20th century, the average woman earned about 60% of what the average man earned. Starting in the late 1970s, there was a substantial increase in women’s relative earnings, with women coming to earn about 80% of what men earned. This historic rise plateaued in 2005 and, since then, the pay gap has remained roughly unchanged.
20 Facts About U.S. Inequality that Everyone Should Know - Stanford Center on Poverty and Inequality
It seems to manifest itself more apparently in the labor market under our form of Capitalism.
This dilemma stems from our common law heritage with the British. At one point in history, women's legal personhood was "subsumed" her husband.
Is that per hour or over all?
I ask because the per hour figure is generally equal and starting jobs are often better paid for women. They just don't do as many hours or work in the same extreme circumstances as us. Being prepared to work away from home, longer hours, more dangerous work etc allow us to get more money. We are also more money focused. There was a load of fuss here, in the UK, about women in a super market chain being paid less than the men. The men generally wroked in the wharehouse and women generally in the front of house. The women demanded equal pay. The general response of the wider world has been that they should go and work in the wharehouse if they want more money.
Does this have anything to do with the politicising of sacience?This dilemma stems from our common law heritage with the British. At one point in history, women's legal personhood was "subsumed" her husband.
Our original Constitution and Bill of Rights were intelligently designed to be both gender and race neutral, from Inception.
I believe simply compensating Labor for Capitalism's natural rate of unemployment will make equality more market friendly than more laws and regulations regarding equality in the work place.
The instant the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change was created in 1989 they took the science out of climate change and made it political. Which means absolutely every problem and political issue can be related to climate change. It has had a deleterious effect on the climate sciences, but just to be clear, science is not immune from politics either. They just have to couch their ideology in peer-reviewed studies, while the IPCC or other political organizations don't.Climate change delusions are undermining science | CFACT
And they wonder why there are Skeptics about.
Ecofarm could give you an answer in the simplest words possible and you still wouldn't accept it. You will not receive a more thorough lesson on gender and the environment until you can prove that you are ready to receive it.You consider my posts moronic but are unable to say why that is.
Given that no answer of any sort, long or short words, came along I can only presume that there was no such answer.Ecofarm could give you an answer in the simplest words possible and you still wouldn't accept it. You will not receive a more thorough lesson on gender and the environment until you can prove that you are ready to receive it.
None of those thing affect the climate. Why bundle them together?The empowerment of women has preceded every major change. Change doesn't occur when half the population is a subject of the other. Seems kinda obvious.
Inter-generational equity is about justice relative to different age groups. A big part of the resistance to modern science is old people. They need to be engaged and vested. Also kinda obvious.
I get the impression the OP is from a position of complete and total ignorance on the subject.
The other side of the question would be why would any political ideology come up with a solutionClimate change happens regardless of our input to the environment.
Why wouldn't capitalism try to come up with capital solutions that require capital?
The problem must exist in every long run equilibrium, we know that.The other side of the question would be why would any political ideology come up with a solution
to a problem that may not exists, and that we may not have any control of?