Pentagon Lifts Ban on Women in Combat

[spurgistan]

On average, yes.

[john9blue]

i don't.

guess there's only one way to find out...

[BigBallinStalin]

Suppose I send out 1200 fictitious resumes to employers in mining companies. The fictitious applicants are 60 years old. If they get hired, do you think the older entrants will receive a higher, equal, or lower wage than the younger ones?

I have no clue and I'm afraid I don't understand what you're getting at. Are we talking physical labour in the mines? are the older fictitious applicants claiming to have more experience in that same area?

Anyway, I should say I don't have a particularly strong opinion about this. I don't take it as intrinsically wrong that someone might think that moms, on average will be less cutthroat than dads.

The marginal product of labor (MPL) is the "measure of the physical increase in the output of a firm or economy; it is the output that results from hiring one additional worker, all other factors remaining constant." So, as an employer, you want to get the most 'bang for your buck'. Old people in the mines are not as productive as younger people, but hey their lesser MPL can be offset with a lower wage--thus matching their productivity. The price (i.e. wage) depends on expectations but over time it depends mostly on what an employee can actually supply.

I'd imagine this explains what's going on in that 1200 fictitious mothers experiment. Simply because an employer says, "Haggis, you cannot do this job at that price as well as what we expect from Ta1lGunn3r; therefore, we're hiring TG," it doesn't mean that this is wrong. And if that employer miscalculates the MPL (i.e. if he underestimates the productivity of those mothers, while paying more for similarly productive non-mothers), then that employer will incur a marginal cost. However, more importantly, an arbitrage opportunity now exists, so other competitors could profit from the cost-savings by hiring x-amount of those mothers. The market has a tendency to correct this while striving to remain efficient and profitable.
(Government apparently doesn't--much to spurgistan's apparent frustration).

I do take offense with the notion that this issue "has been disproven many times", when it clearly still is an active area of research.

The wage gap between the biological genders is predominantly explained by differences in productivity which is due to distinct tendencies from either side (which is the outcome of each side's general preferences and choices). See this video, and its recommended reading if you're interested enough.

I'm convinced that 'the debate is over', but some people will always remain butthurt because they reject evidence which contradicts their claims against those evil markets. Unfortunately, they'll continue conducting research, read too much into the data, and manipulate the statistics in order to support their preconceived notions.

[BigBallinStalin]

i don't.

guess there's only one way to find out...

DANGIT, JOHN. BE MORE IDEALISTIC.

[john9blue]

See this video, and its recommended reading if you're interested enough.

man, i spent like 15 minutes looking for this video earlier. thanks for posting it.

[Haggis_McMutton]

that's because, even if you manage to find women who are able to meet the physical standards that men do, they introduce a whole host of psychological problems to their unit. if the benefit from the additional "man"power in our military outweighed these negative psychological consequences, then i'd be totally in favor of introducing women to combat. the reality of the situation, though, is that our military is already bloated and there's just no need to make our current soldiers suffer more than they have to... even if it's the female soldiers who are victims of misogyny from the males.

the disagreement ITT arises because i look at things from a pragmatic POV and others look at it from an idealist POV. yes, it's unfair for women to not be able to join combat roles because the men can't handle it... but that is simply the way things are. there is a much reduced sense of "brotherhood" if one of us is not a "brother".

What do you have to back up these statements? ( really hope that, unlike Viceroy, you aren't going to claim "common sense" )

first, answer me this: do you think it's irrational for an employer to not want to hire a mother? do you think a company full of mothers will perform just as well as one full of fathers?

I think the decision regarding Mary's capabilities for role X should not be made based on the average capabilities of the hundreds of million of people who fall under the label "mother".

After all she

was also a mother.

The marginal product of labor (MPL) is the "measure of the physical increase in the output of a firm or economy; it is the output that results from hiring one additional worker, all other factors remaining constant." So, as an employer, you want to get the most 'bang for your buck'. Old people in the mines are not as productive as younger people, but hey their lesser MPL can be offset with a lower wage--thus matching their productivity. The price (i.e. wage) depends on expectations but over time it depends mostly on what an employee can actually supply.

I'd imagine this explains what's going on in that 1200 fictitious mothers experiment. Simply because an employer says, "Haggis, you cannot do this job at that price as well as what we expect from Ta1lGunn3r; therefore, we're hiring TG," it doesn't mean that this is wrong. And if that employer miscalculates the MPL (i.e. if he underestimates the productivity of those mothers, while paying more for similarly productive non-mothers), then that employer will incur a marginal cost. However, more importantly, an arbitrage opportunity now exists, so other competitors could profit from the cost-savings by hiring x-amount of those mothers. The market has a tendency to correct this while striving to remain efficient and profitable.
(Government apparently doesn't--much to spurgistan's apparent frustration).

Right, I think the problem arises when it's not Haggis vs. TG but Group A of people vs. Group B of people where the groups contains millions.
I think many historical ills can be partially traced to treating large groups of people as if they were individuals. If you think Adam isn't a good hire cause he's more dishonest than Bob, then that's cool. If however you think Adam isn't a good hire cause he's a Jew and Jews are more dishonest than catholics like Bob, then that's very uncool.

I do take offense with the notion that this issue "has been disproven many times", when it clearly still is an active area of research.

The wage gap between the biological genders is predominantly explained by differences in productivity which is due to distinct tendencies from either side (which is the outcome of each side's general preferences and choices). See this video, and its recommended reading if you're interested enough.

I'm convinced that 'the debate is over', but some people will always remain butthurt because they reject evidence which contradicts their claims against those evil markets. Unfortunately, they'll continue conducting research, read too much into the data, and manipulate the statistics in order to support their preconceived notions.

I don't think any real scientists is claiming the whole 25% is discrimination. So yes it is predominantly explained due to what the video discusses. Some people say there is still a significant margin that is due to discrimination though. Again, from the wiki article

However, in 2010, an economist testified to the U.S. Congress Joint Economic Committee that studies "always find that some portion of the wage gap is unexplained" even after controlling for measurable factors that are assumed to influence earnings. The unexplained portion of the wage gap is attributed by some to gender discrimination.[3]:80

The estimates for the discriminatory component of the gender pay gap include 5%[4]:2 and 7%[3]:9 and in at least one study grow as men and women's careers progress.

I haven't studied the problem in depth, but from what I can see so far the case isn't closed.

[patches70]

Suppose I send out 1200 fictitious resumes to employers in mining companies. The fictitious applicants are 60 years old. If they get hired, do you think the older entrants will receive a higher, equal, or lower wage than the younger ones?

I can safely say that if you send out 1200 fictitious resumes, though you may get some offers, those offers will be rescinded at the moment it is realized that the resumes are fictitious. None will get hired.


But back on topic, there have been lots of polls, women in general aren't interested in serving on the front lines. Even women in the military.

So long as the combat troops can pass the PT, that is the standards should not be lowered nor should there be alternative standards for women and men, then there is no problem. As someone else already said, that chick better be able to pick up a soldier and carry his shot up ass to the nearest aid station if necessary. She better be able to heft that mortar if she's a mortar (wo)man and all that other jazz.

Pay isn't an issue, of a certain rank you get a certain pay. Hazard duty as proscribed and all the other things. It's all laid out, and there isn't a Male Pay scale and a Female Pay scale in the military.
https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q ... 4429,d.b2I

Pretty much the women combat troops will get paid just as crappy as the men. heh heh.

[spurgistan]

i don't.

guess there's only one way to find out...

What is it about moms you think makes them less efficient workers than fathers? Warning - if you say "they need to take care of the kids," I might punch you through the internet.

[spurgistan]

Suppose I send out 1200 fictitious resumes to employers in mining companies. The fictitious applicants are 60 years old. If they get hired, do you think the older entrants will receive a higher, equal, or lower wage than the younger ones?

I can safely say that if you send out 1200 fictitious resumes, though you may get some offers, those offers will be rescinded at the moment it is realized that the resumes are fictitious. None will get hired.


But back on topic, there have been lots of polls, women in general aren't interested in serving on the front lines. Even women in the military.

So long as the combat troops can pass the PT, that is the standards should not be lowered nor should there be alternative standards for women and men, then there is no problem. As someone else already said, that chick better be able to pick up a soldier and carry his shot up ass to the nearest aid station if necessary. She better be able to heft that mortar if she's a mortar (wo)man and all that other jazz.

Pay isn't an issue, of a certain rank you get a certain pay. Hazard duty as proscribed and all the other things. It's all laid out, and there isn't a Male Pay scale and a Female Pay scale in the military.
https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q ... 4429,d.b2I

Pretty much the women combat troops will get paid just as crappy as the men. heh heh.

There have been plenty of peer-reviewed articles where identical fake resumes were made using black-sounding names and white-sounding names, and the white names got called in for interviews at a much higher clip. A bit outdated, but 2009 nber study

It doesn't matter if "women in general" don't want to serve on the front lines - men "in general" don't want to serve on the front lines, or we'd be able to fight way more wars. But a few are ok with being puppets of international finance and dying for oil companies, so, we let them.

Proscribed means the exact opposite of how you used it there. Minor quibble.

[john9blue]

i don't.

guess there's only one way to find out...

What is it about moms you think makes them less efficient workers than fathers? Warning - if you say "they need to take care of the kids," I might punch you through the internet.

hold on, let me get my shield and helmet first...

[patches70]

There have been plenty of peer-reviewed articles where identical fake resumes were made using black-sounding names and white-sounding names, and the white names got called in for interviews at a much higher clip. A bit outdated, but 2009 nber study

And, umm, this has to do with women in the military, how?

If you are referring to my jab at BBS, you needn't concern yourself, I am just playing with him. Fraudulent resumes get a person no job, as soon as the fraudulent resume is discovered.
One job I had a long time ago, a fellow had gotten hired and he was working out just fine. Come in one day he's gone. "What'd he do?" I asked, he lied on his application and when discovered, even though he'd been hired, they fired him.

Oh, and you been listening to Rush lately? When was it, Thursday I think it was, when that very study you have linked to was brought up.
I'll bet ya that any of those who got offered interviews didn't show up for the interview. LOL. Since those people didn't actually exist. I point out this just because exposing wrongdoing through fraudulent means is just funny. It is what it is, but I don't think it has much to do with anything when it comes to female combat troops getting paid the same as male combat troops. Pay in the military is pretty much "Your rank fall here in the table of pay".

It doesn't matter if "women in general" don't want to serve on the front lines - men "in general" don't want to serve on the front lines, or we'd be able to fight way more wars. But a few are ok with being puppets of international finance and dying for oil companies, so, we let them.

That's kind of out of nowhere. Ok then, sure I guess. And this has to do with women serving in combat roles how? That's just a completely different topic all together.
Are you for or against women on the front lines? I'm all for it, so long as they can pass the exact same PT that males can pass. And the PT isn't all that heavy, really. Hell, in Turkey during the First Gulf war, I seen guys who got their service rifle jammed, couldn't clear the jam and just throw their weapon down on the ground and all pissed off. Sad but true.

Proscribed means the exact opposite of how you used it there. Minor quibble.

My apologies. I hit the wrong letter. Thank you sir. But you got my meaning, all the pay is specifically laid out by the military and there are no charts that have "Male earns X" and "Female earn X-Y".
That's why I think it silly to be worrying about the pay, women will get the same terrible pay as the men.

This all seems more like a PR campaign than anything. You are right, anyone in their right mind won't want to get anywhere near a battlefield. Seems like an issue for feminists and such, which makes me <yawn>. I'd think most women would be of the mind "screw that" (and rightly so) when it comes to- "How would you like to serve your country by killing the bad guys on the front lines?"

Lord knows, we'll have plenty of more wars. Never a shortage of them. Someone has to fight in the wars, I guess. Seems wasteful to me, but the politicians know best.......
Anyway, have a good day!

[Lootifer]

yes, it's unfair for women to not be able to join combat roles because the men can't handle it... but that is simply the way things are. there is a much reduced sense of "brotherhood" if one of us is not a "brother".

You highlight the inherent problem, and who is responsible for it.

The problem lies with the men who see "brotherhood" as a male-only thing.

The people who suffer because of the problem are the 'ard as fucking nails woman who dont give a f*ck about whats between your legs and just want to soldier.

Im all for trying to correct the men who are causing the problem (and i'd hazard to guess it is actually a fairly low proportion of front line combat soldiers) rather than settling with status quo because "its just too hard".

Like Haggis I support Nobungas requirement that woman meet the exact same entry criteria; I just disagree with your pragmatic argument that fixing soldier psychology is just too hard. If anything getting beat by a girl in training exercises will only serve to improve all the macho twats...

[BigBallinStalin]

The marginal product of labor (MPL) is the "measure of the physical increase in the output of a firm or economy; it is the output that results from hiring one additional worker, all other factors remaining constant." So, as an employer, you want to get the most 'bang for your buck'. Old people in the mines are not as productive as younger people, but hey their lesser MPL can be offset with a lower wage--thus matching their productivity. The price (i.e. wage) depends on expectations but over time it depends mostly on what an employee can actually supply.

I'd imagine this explains what's going on in that 1200 fictitious mothers experiment. Simply because an employer says, "Haggis, you cannot do this job at that price as well as what we expect from Ta1lGunn3r; therefore, we're hiring TG," it doesn't mean that this is wrong. And if that employer miscalculates the MPL (i.e. if he underestimates the productivity of those mothers, while paying more for similarly productive non-mothers), then that employer will incur a marginal cost. However, more importantly, an arbitrage opportunity now exists, so other competitors could profit from the cost-savings by hiring x-amount of those mothers. The market has a tendency to correct this while striving to remain efficient and profitable.
(Government apparently doesn't--much to spurgistan's apparent frustration).

Right, I think the problem arises when it's not Haggis vs. TG but Group A of people vs. Group B of people where the groups contains millions.
I think many historical ills can be partially traced to treating large groups of people as if they were individuals. If you think Adam isn't a good hire cause he's more dishonest than Bob, then that's cool. If however you think Adam isn't a good hire cause he's a Jew and Jews are more dishonest than catholics like Bob, then that's very uncool.

Of course, but I don't see how that reasoning explains most of the problem here. Much of the discrepancy is explained away with MPL and people's previous choices and preferences.

MPL still applies to millions; it's microeconomics.

If an employer makes such decisions by only having an applicant's particular group in mind, then he's missing out on many profitable opportunities, which his competitors will take advantage of--if they're aware of them.

I do take offense with the notion that this issue "has been disproven many times", when it clearly still is an active area of research.

The wage gap between the biological genders is predominantly explained by differences in productivity which is due to distinct tendencies from either side (which is the outcome of each side's general preferences and choices). See this video, and its recommended reading if you're interested enough.

I'm convinced that 'the debate is over', but some people will always remain butthurt because they reject evidence which contradicts their claims against those evil markets. Unfortunately, they'll continue conducting research, read too much into the data, and manipulate the statistics in order to support their preconceived notions.

I don't think any real scientists is claiming the whole 25% is discrimination. So yes it is predominantly explained due to what the video discusses. Some people say there is still a significant margin that is due to discrimination though. Again, from the wiki article

However, in 2010, an economist testified to the U.S. Congress Joint Economic Committee that studies "always find that some portion of the wage gap is unexplained" even after controlling for measurable factors that are assumed to influence earnings. The unexplained portion of the wage gap is attributed by some to gender discrimination.[3]:80

The estimates for the discriminatory component of the gender pay gap include 5%[4]:2 and 7%[3]:9 and in at least one study grow as men and women's careers progress.

I haven't studied the problem in depth, but from what I can see so far the case isn't closed.

Because people can still fill in the gaps of the unexplained with their preconceived notions; social science is forever inexact; and statistics can be manipulated and/or used poorly. Maybe about 1% or 2% of discrepancy may be explained by discrimination, but the rest isn't.

For example, (wiki) "For example, fewer replies to identical resumes with female names[3]:10 and more jobs went to women when orchestras moved to blind auditions.[4]"

Is that evidence of discrimination or evidence that lacking knowledge of an employee's risks and future costs leads to poorer decisions? I say the former. Having kids isn't good for business; it's costly, and unfortunately in today's society the women predominantly take care of the kids.



Note: I was reading that government review on gender-wage gap. "Women working full-time, year-round earn only 77 cents for every dollar earned by men, and virtually no progress has been made in closing the gap since 2001.[26]"

That's false. If you fail to control for differences in age and career, then ohmerhgerd! no growth in income for women! (Also, note the selective use of words: "full-time, year-round" but what about the other categories?)

This is a political report which involves ulterior motives, so this isn't trustworthy.

[BigBallinStalin]

yes, it's unfair for women to not be able to join combat roles because the men can't handle it... but that is simply the way things are. there is a much reduced sense of "brotherhood" if one of us is not a "brother".

You highlight the inherent problem, and who is responsible for it.

The problem lies with the men who see "brotherhood" as a male-only thing.

The people who suffer because of the problem are the 'ard as fucking nails woman who dont give a f*ck about whats between your legs and just want to soldier.

Im all for trying to correct the men who are causing the problem (and i'd hazard to guess it is actually a fairly low proportion of front line combat soldiers) rather than settling with status quo because "its just too hard".

Like Haggis I support Nobungas requirement that woman meet the exact same entry criteria; I just disagree with your pragmatic argument that fixing soldier psychology is just too hard. If anything getting beat by a girl in training exercises will only serve to improve all the macho twats...

Agreed. Look at Mao's Red Army from the 1930s and on. No problems with brotherhood solidarity there.

[DoomYoshi]

http://www.historynet.com/women-warriors.htm

Also, this has inspired me to start the second tournament in my Wonderful Warrior Women series. I will keep you posted, my eager awaiting fans.

[DoomYoshi]

Im all for trying to correct the men who are causing the problem (and i'd hazard to guess it is actually a fairly low proportion of front line combat soldiers) rather than settling with status quo because "its just too hard".

Well you just lost that bet, since it is 30% of them (that have either raped or sexually assaulted).

[Lootifer]

Reinforces my point though.

[saxitoxin]

edit - I decided I don't care that much about this topic so I deleted my post.

[Lootifer]

Here here!

[thegreekdog]

edit - I decided I don't care that much about this topic so I deleted my post.

That is basically my view on this subject. I'm largely indifferent, although I think the argument against women serving in the military should be reserved to men who actually served in combat, as opposed to men who like to pretend they know what goes on (which is another reason I have no strong opinion - I did not serve and was not in combat so my opinion means little).

[john9blue]

edit - I decided I don't care that much about this topic so I deleted my post.

That is basically my view on this subject. I'm largely indifferent, although I think the argument against women serving in the military should be reserved to men who actually served in combat, as opposed to men who like to pretend they know what goes on (which is another reason I have no strong opinion - I did not serve and was not in combat so my opinion means little).

this sounds eerily like the argument women use for why men shouldn't be allowed to debate abortion...

[thegreekdog]

edit - I decided I don't care that much about this topic so I deleted my post.

That is basically my view on this subject. I'm largely indifferent, although I think the argument against women serving in the military should be reserved to men who actually served in combat, as opposed to men who like to pretend they know what goes on (which is another reason I have no strong opinion - I did not serve and was not in combat so my opinion means little).

this sounds eerily like the argument women use for why men shouldn't be allowed to debate abortion...

That's an unfortunate and poor analogy, but yeah, it does sound like that argument.

[nietzsche]

edit - I decided I don't care that much about this topic so I deleted my post.

Was this the flame? I didn't see it in time.

2dimes is unstoppable now, and Scotty will pay for it.

[thegreekdog]

i don't.

guess there's only one way to find out...

What is it about moms you think makes them less efficient workers than fathers? Warning - if you say "they need to take care of the kids," I might punch you through the internet.

I will say this (and note the specific language).

If an employee takes a leave of absence after the birth of a child, he or she will be less effective than someone who does not take a leave of absence.

If an employee works a part-time schedule to take care of his or her children, he or she will be less effective than someone who works a full time schedule.

There are ways that firms deal with these two realities, but they are most definitely realities.

[thegreekdog]

This is an interesting thread. It seems that some people (e.g. McMuffin and spurgistan) have made some strawman arguments. Nobunaga is pointing out that he thinks women in combat is fine as long as they are held to the same physical standards as men (I would agree and vice versa). But McMuffin and spurgistan are "moving the goal posts" (to use McMuffin's phrase) by pointing to things like "why can't women do what men can do?" I'm sure they can, but right now they aren't required to in the military. And that may or may not cause a problem. So why don't you guys argue about that instead of creating this inequality straw man?