How Sears Used the Market to Undermine Racism
28 Oct 2018 Leave a comment
in discrimination, economic history, entrepreneurship, industrial organisation, politics - USA, survivor principle Tags: creative destruction, racial discrimination
Why does @women_nz @JulieAnneGenter treat men’s occupational choices as superior? Women choose more interactive occupations because of their vastly superior reading and verbal skills
28 Oct 2018 Leave a comment
in discrimination, economics of education, gender, human capital, labour economics, labour supply, occupational choice, politics - New Zealand Tags: gender wage gap
Note for @SenSanders
27 Oct 2018 Leave a comment
in economic history, Marxist economics, politics - USA Tags: fall of communism, The Great Fact
Former CIA Chief Explains How Spies Use Disguises | WIRED
27 Oct 2018 Leave a comment
in defence economics, economics of crime, law and economics, politics - USA
Rejoinder to @TVNZ reply to @BSA_NZ complaint
25 Oct 2018 Leave a comment
in politics - New Zealand, poverty and inequality
My rejoinder is TVNZ is so sloppy with the facts that it is spent most of its reply on the exemption in cases of where paternity is uncertain or disputed. That has nothing to do with my complaint about their failure to mention in their broadcast the exemption in the case of threats of violence.
To support their reply, TVNZ attached a rambling paper from Auckland action against poverty and a Herald op-ed about the need to have a lawyer’s letter. TVNZ misread the rambling Auckland action for poverty document with talks about needing a lawyer to get the exemption lifted. This is different to when first applying for the benefit. The New Zealand Herald op-ed is unclear about which exemption is under discussion: for threats of violence or for disputed paternity.
TVNZ interviewed the minister about the exemption but put none of the activist allegations to her according to the attached official information response of TVNZ. An opportunity lost for balance.
I put the allegation that a lawyer is required to apply for the exemption in case of threats of violence through official information requests to the Minister and her ministry. Both the Minister and the ministry said that was not so: a lawyer is not required to apply for the exemption. The Ministry also explained that benefit applicants are interviewed by the case manager and briefed on their options.
TVNZ included the link https://www.workandincome.govt.nz/map/income-support/core-policy/child-support/carer-unable-to-provide-written-proof-of-the-risk-of-violence.html
I clicked on the link Exempting section 70A reductions https://www.workandincome.govt.nz/map/income-support/core-policy/child-support/exempting-section-70a-reductions.html and then clicked on Risk of Violence link https://www.workandincome.govt.nz/map/income-support/core-policy/child-support/risk-of-violence-01.html and then clicked on Carer required to provide proof of risk of violence link https://www.workandincome.govt.nz/map/income-support/core-policy/child-support/carer-required-to-provide-proof-of-the-risk-of-violence.html
The above screenshot lists all the 3rd parties who are credible witnesses. TVNZ had to go through these links to find the link Carer unable to provide written proof of the risk of violence at https://www.workandincome.govt.nz/map/income-support/core-policy/child-support/carer-unable-to-provide-written-proof-of-the-risk-of-violence.html
Sole parent beneficiary applicants are not asked for a letter from a lawyer as claimed by TVNZ. The link supplied in the TVNZ reply says applicants are advised to speak to a family violence coordinator or a service centre manager at WINZ. TVNZ is convicted by the information it supplied to the BSA.
In summary, TVNZ never mentioned the exemption on air. When I complained, it relied on allegations from activists that were never put to the Minister or her ministry despite opportunities to do so in an interview with the Minister. In the reply to the complaint, TVNZ provided written proof to the BSA from WINZ that applicants are advised to speak a family violence coordinator or a WINZ service centre manager if they are having trouble documenting the threats or abuse. The link provided by TVNZ shows there is no requirement for a letter from a lawyer. The exemption was never mentioned on air nor its purported shortcomings. The claim that TVNZ did not need to mention the exemption because it was unworkable because of the need to hire a lawyer has no foundation in fact and was never put to the minister or WINZ for comment and balance.
Labor Ethics | Political Philosophy with Jason Brennan
24 Oct 2018 Leave a comment
in applied price theory, development economics, economic history, economics of bureaucracy, economics of crime, health and safety, human capital, income redistribution, labour economics, labour supply, law and economics, minimum wage, occupational choice, politics - USA, poverty and inequality, Public Choice, public economics, rentseeking
Why the kids climate suit is rubbish: courts cannot order Congress to pass laws
24 Oct 2018 Leave a comment
in environmental economics, global warming, law and economics, politics - USA, Public Choice, rentseeking Tags: climate alarmists
What Happens if you Renounce Your Citizenship But Don’t Belong to Another Country When You Do It?
24 Oct 2018 Leave a comment
in international economic law, International law, politics - USA, Public Choice, public economics
A FB cycling hate group! Ridiculous FB hate speech rules
23 Oct 2018 Leave a comment
in politics - Australia, transport economics Tags: free speech, road safety
Steven Pinker Defends James Damore Against Dishonest Slanderer
23 Oct 2018 1 Comment
in discrimination, economics of education, gender, human capital, industrial organisation, labour economics, law and economics, occupational choice, politics - USA, survivor principle Tags: employment law, gender wage gap
Historiography of Soviet Espionage in America (Part 2) Ronald Radosh
22 Oct 2018 Leave a comment
in defence economics, economics of crime, law and economics, politics - USA Tags: Cold War
Money For Nothing: Inside the Federal Reserve – Trailer
21 Oct 2018 Leave a comment
in business cycles, economic growth, economics of bureaucracy, global financial crisis (GFC), great recession, inflation targeting, macroeconomics, monetary economics, politics - USA, Public Choice Tags: economics of central banking
Submission to Select Committee on Equal Pay Amendment Bill
21 Oct 2018 Leave a comment
in discrimination, economics of education, gender, human capital, industrial organisation, labour economics, labour supply, occupational choice, politics - New Zealand
This submission is made up of 6 attachments because that is the maximum I could load.
Attachments 1 and 2 are the main part of submission and argue that pay equity is unfair to fair employers. An employer can hire and promote on merit, pay the going wage and still be successfully sued. Their name blackened forever. As a question of social justice, it is wrong to sue someone as a discriminating employer, when there is nothing they could do to right the supposedly wrong they were successfully sued. Barnardo’s can no longer compete with social workers because of the pay equity settlement in the public sector. It relies on donations and tendering for public contracts. It has no capacity to raise wages but could be successfully sued and driven out of business.
Attachments 3 to 5 explains that the gender pay gap is the result of the work-life balance choices of women interacting with some professions penalising an inability to work specific hours or long hours much more than. Pay equity will address none of these issues.
Attachment 6 explains how more than 40 years ago Solomon Polachek found that the gender pay gap was driven by factors such as the number and spacing of children. Employers cannot discriminate against women because they do not know this information and it is now unlawful to ask. It is a strange misogyny that employers hire single women on merit but have a bias against mothers who have several children whose birthdates on widely spaced apart.
To conclude this overview, as attachment 3 shows in a graphic, the gender pay gap for women at the bottom and middle of the labour market is barely 3-5%. It is rather odd to be offering 30% pay rises for a group of women whose pay gap with men at the bottom and middle of the labour market is not more than 5%. Clearly the comparable worth methodology misses something.
Recent Comments