Income Inequality Is Hurting The Economy, 3 Dozen Economists Say

Al wrote:

Personally, I think the best way to handle creationists is to let them (and their kids) be creationists. They just represent one fewer person I (and my kid) have to compete against in the workforce.

How so?

I DOUBLE POSTED OK? DON'T JUDGE ME!

Al wrote:
fangblackbone wrote:

That sounds eerily close to "let them eat cake."

I think of it more as not judging their lifestyle choice.

I was going to say, if it's "Let them eat cake," in this metaphor, it would be people saying that who have declared that they will only eat cake, regardless of any evidence on the healthiness of that in the long term.

fangblackbone wrote:

That sounds eerily close to "let them eat cake."

I think of it more as not judging their lifestyle choice.

NormanTheIntern wrote:

How so?

The creationists I've known have tended not to get far. Granted, I've only known a very small handful and the one's I've known were pretty vocal about it so that may say more about a lack of "soft skills" than anything else. Still works in my favor.

Al wrote:
fangblackbone wrote:

That sounds eerily close to "let them eat cake."

I think of it more as not judging their lifestyle choice.

NormanTheIntern wrote:

How so?

The creationists I've known have tended not to get far. Granted, I've only known a very small handful and the one's I've known were pretty vocal about it so that may say more about a lack of "soft skills" than anything else. Still works in my favor.

Per Oso's sig:

OG_slinger wrote:

"Your creationism-educated children will make fantastic ditch-diggers for their Chinese overlords."

I'm still missing the relevance - unless our children are digging for Chinese dinosaur bones?

NormanTheIntern wrote:

I'm still missing the relevance - unless our children are digging for Chinese dinosaur bones?

I'd have thought the capacity for rational thought was fairly high up on the list of desirable traits for any prospective employee. Wouldn't you?

jibboom wrote:
NormanTheIntern wrote:

I'm still missing the relevance - unless our children are digging for Chinese dinosaur bones?

I'd have thought the capacity for rational thought was fairly high up on the list of desirable traits for any prospective employee. Wouldn't you?

My calc teacher in high school was a proud YE creationist. Being otherwise rational and holding ridiculous theories are not mutually exclusive.

Everyone's favorite villain - the Koch brothers - have donated hundreds of millions of dollars to legitimate scientific institutions...and they've also funded hardcore climate change denialist papers. It's a world of weirdness.

But we've kinda strayed from the OP. I still don't think climate change denialists or YE creationists deserve a life of poverty. That's why it's so heartbreaking when they try so hard to maintain their lives of poverty.

I still don't think climate change denialists or YE creationists deserve a life of poverty.

If we continue destroying the planet, a life of poverty may become a luxury, though... or, you know, any life at all.

jibboom wrote:
NormanTheIntern wrote:

I'm still missing the relevance - unless our children are digging for Chinese dinosaur bones?

I'd have thought the capacity for rational thought was fairly high up on the list of desirable traits for any prospective employee. Wouldn't you?

Have you ever been asked about your religious beliefs in a job interview though?

NormanTheIntern wrote:
jibboom wrote:
NormanTheIntern wrote:

I'm still missing the relevance - unless our children are digging for Chinese dinosaur bones?

I'd have thought the capacity for rational thought was fairly high up on the list of desirable traits for any prospective employee. Wouldn't you?

Have you ever been asked about your religious beliefs in a job interview though?

Doing so would be illegal.

Throwaway comment/joke picked over to death, film at 11.

MrDeVil909 wrote:
Maq wrote:
fangblackbone wrote:

It is like if the French Revolution aristocrats somehow convinced the angry mob that the reason for their plight was not the hedonistic, luxury indulged, gluttonous aristocracy but your neighbors or the people down the street that are living high on the hog because they can afford shoes for one of their children.

Oh just wait. It's coming.

6 years since the crash and nobody has faced a guillotine or firing squad yet. I'm starting to despair that the revolution will ever come.

People who pay attention to forums like this are about 5% or less of the overall population. If people don't care, and if there are enough distractions to keep them oblivious (tv, sports, facebook, etc.), then nothing will ever change. Even mild protests (operation wall street) do nothing worth noticing, at this point. It's not enough. The protestors there didn't have the numbers and didn't have any tangible threats to make the powers-that-be care.

Plus, frankly, this is a global economy now. If there's a revolution, the rich will just pack their bags and move to Europe. Life will go on. They're pretty much untouchable, at this point, unless they quarrel amongst themselves.

Bloo Driver wrote:

Throwaway comment/joke picked over to death, film at 11.

My bad, sorry.

I suspect when people here say "Creationist" they mean "Young Earth Creationist/Biblical Literalist". Plenty of people have no problem with an Old Earth or evolution or even abiogenesis as long as they can say "But God set the rules". That doesn't mean that they are selectively irrational to the same degree as religious literalists or YE types.

Demosthenes wrote:
NormanTheIntern wrote:
jibboom wrote:
NormanTheIntern wrote:

I'm still missing the relevance - unless our children are digging for Chinese dinosaur bones?

I'd have thought the capacity for rational thought was fairly high up on the list of desirable traits for any prospective employee. Wouldn't you?

Have you ever been asked about your religious beliefs in a job interview though?

Doing so would be illegal.

While true, there are ways to get around this:

"What do you like to do in your free time?"

nel e nel wrote:
Demosthenes wrote:
NormanTheIntern wrote:
jibboom wrote:
NormanTheIntern wrote:

I'm still missing the relevance - unless our children are digging for Chinese dinosaur bones?

I'd have thought the capacity for rational thought was fairly high up on the list of desirable traits for any prospective employee. Wouldn't you?

Have you ever been asked about your religious beliefs in a job interview though?

Doing so would be illegal.

While true, there are ways to get around this:

"What do you like to do in your free time?"

Master....S of the Orion!!!!

I helped hire a guy for a company I worked for, who became my boss. (I knew I'd be working for him.) We of course asked nothing about his beliefs on anything other than work-related topics. He turned out to be a Biblical Literalist who was incapable of dealing with any tiny sign that went against his paternal authority within his group. He was The Leader, and *everything* he said was law. No dissension or disagreement or other ways to do things allowed. This came directly from his upbringing in the Bible Belt (he let us know this with no equivocation) and extended to his family as well (he trained his toddlers to bring him beer as soon as they could walk, and expected them and his wife to literally serve him when he was home. I understand his family life also suffered because of this stuff.)

Eventually, when I decided to leave the company (NOT because of him - I spent most of my time on customer sites and thus could easily avoid him) I let him know and he went beet-red, yelled at me for a bit, then asked me when I was planning on leaving. I started to answer and he said "No, I'll tell you what, I'll tell you when you leave. Sit right there." He went to HR and worked up papers to have me fired.

While this benefited me - I got two weeks pay out of it which I would not have had - he did it entirely because he was pissed at me for "challenging" him by leaving his group. And I had interviewed him and hired him! I spoke with the company president and the HR person and they said they'd tell people I resigned and not to worry about it. As far as I know the paperwork got lost.

This is an example of Bronze Age management techniques and ways of thinking not transferring to the modern world.

Robear wrote:

This is an example of Bronze Age management techniques and ways of thinking not transferring to the modern world.

I think you're underestimating the people of the bronze age, who likely would've thrown that asshole out on his ear.

I think you're underestimating the people of the bronze age, who likely would've thrown that asshole out on his ear.

I think if Game of Thrones is any indication of the violent power struggles in the medieval age, he more than likely would have met with an unfortunate hunting accident or clumsily fell from a tower.

Now hold on. I am not condoning this barbaric retribution in any way shape or form. I just find it interesting that those that who think it is kosher to wrangle authority through "might is right" or "possession is 9/10 of the law" often overlook that it goes hand in hand with "live by the sword, die by the sword".

William II of England comes to mind...

fangblackbone wrote:
I think you're underestimating the people of the bronze age, who likely would've thrown that asshole out on his ear.

I think if Game of Thrones is any indication of the violent power struggles in the medieval age, he more than likely would have met with an unfortunate hunting accident or clumsily fell from a tower.

Now hold on. I am not condoning this barbaric retribution in any way shape or form. I just find it interesting that those that who think it is kosher to wrangle authority through "might is right" or "possession is 9/10 of the law" often overlook that it goes hand in hand with "live by the sword, die by the sword".

That is part of the irony of Bronze Age biblical literalists living in the modern day though, isn't it? These are precisely the kind of pasty untermenschen that would have been impaled on spears in front of the city walls, but because of civil society, their brand of crazy is simply tolerated.

Paleocon wrote:
fangblackbone wrote:
I think you're underestimating the people of the bronze age, who likely would've thrown that asshole out on his ear.

I think if Game of Thrones is any indication of the violent power struggles in the medieval age, he more than likely would have met with an unfortunate hunting accident or clumsily fell from a tower.

Now hold on. I am not condoning this barbaric retribution in any way shape or form. I just find it interesting that those that who think it is kosher to wrangle authority through "might is right" or "possession is 9/10 of the law" often overlook that it goes hand in hand with "live by the sword, die by the sword".

That is part of the irony of Bronze Age biblical literalists living in the modern day though, isn't it? These are precisely the kind of pasty untermenschen that would have been impaled on spears in front of the city walls, but because of civil society, their brand of crazy is simply tolerated.

This is seriously inappropriate, Paleo.

Seth wrote:
jibboom wrote:
NormanTheIntern wrote:

I'm still missing the relevance - unless our children are digging for Chinese dinosaur bones?

I'd have thought the capacity for rational thought was fairly high up on the list of desirable traits for any prospective employee. Wouldn't you?

My calc teacher in high school was a proud YE creationist. Being otherwise rational and holding ridiculous theories are not mutually exclusive.

Everyone's favorite villain - the Koch brothers - have donated hundreds of millions of dollars to legitimate scientific institutions...and they've also funded hardcore climate change denialist papers. It's a world of weirdness.

But we've kinda strayed from the OP. I still don't think climate change denialists or YE creationists deserve a life of poverty. That's why it's so heartbreaking when they try so hard to maintain their lives of poverty.

Yeah I see your point and on reflection my post was probably OTT on the snark but I don't think a truly rational person picks and chooses what they are rational about. Anyway, sorry for contributing to the derail.

Yeah I see your point and on reflection my post was probably OTT on the snark but I don't think a truly rational person picks and chooses what they are rational about. Anyway, sorry for contributing to the derail.

I think it is human nature to pick and choose what we are rational about. Even if it is just sports fan superstitions. Instinct and intuition are very relevant human traits.

To what degree it takes to realize you have allowed irrationality to become extremely counterproductive is where the problem lies. And one of the critical problems institutionalizing income inequality.

I don't think people pick and choose what to be rational about. I think rather that they consider *all* their beliefs to be "rational". That is, there's no decision that beliefs can be revisited if the evidence for them changes, or if they don't fit their premises.

Life looks different if you require yourself to reconsider your beliefs over time, based on evidence. Most people start with one set of core beliefs and never allow (or want) them to be changed. Often, that's "The Bible", whatever they perceive that to mean.

And the problem is that that's emphatically not based on what the world is actually like, either physically or socially.

So where pretty much everyone agrees that "don't kill other people" and "don't steal people's stuff" and "don't sleep with someone else's spouse" are good rules, religious books add other rules and notions. Demons and angels exist and influence daily life. An all powerful God makes things happen in people's lives, sometimes even when they ask for it. Some foods, animals, clothing, bodily functions, attractions and the like are ritually "unclean" and must be avoided. Women are inferior to men. Those who don't believe are inferior to those who do. Those who have different color skin are inferior. When we die, we transition to a better place or a worse place depending on how we behaved in life, or *not* depending on how we behaved in life.

And these beliefs often hold the same unquestioned status as "apples fall to the earth when dropped" and "the sun appears to rise in the east".

Robear wrote:

I helped hire a guy for a company I worked for, who became my boss. (I knew I'd be working for him.) We of course asked nothing about his beliefs on anything other than work-related topics. He turned out to be a Biblical Literalist who was incapable of dealing with any tiny sign that went against his paternal authority within his group. He was The Leader, and *everything* he said was law. No dissension or disagreement or other ways to do things allowed. This came directly from his upbringing in the Bible Belt (he let us know this with no equivocation) and extended to his family as well (he trained his toddlers to bring him beer as soon as they could walk, and expected them and his wife to literally serve him when he was home. I understand his family life also suffered because of this stuff.)

Eventually, when I decided to leave the company (NOT because of him - I spent most of my time on customer sites and thus could easily avoid him) I let him know and he went beet-red, yelled at me for a bit, then asked me when I was planning on leaving. I started to answer and he said "No, I'll tell you what, I'll tell you when you leave. Sit right there." He went to HR and worked up papers to have me fired.

While this benefited me - I got two weeks pay out of it which I would not have had - he did it entirely because he was pissed at me for "challenging" him by leaving his group. And I had interviewed him and hired him! I spoke with the company president and the HR person and they said they'd tell people I resigned and not to worry about it. As far as I know the paperwork got lost.

This is an example of Bronze Age management techniques and ways of thinking not transferring to the modern world.

Paternalistic bullying is not exclusive to biblical literalists.

That's not my claim. My claim is that his beliefs that the Bible gave him the right to be a paternalistic bully led to his behavior.

Robear wrote:

I don't think people pick and choose what to be rational about. I think rather that they consider *all* their beliefs to be "rational". That is, there's no decision that beliefs can be revisited if the evidence for them changes, or if they don't fit their premises.

Life looks different if you require yourself to reconsider your beliefs over time, based on evidence. Most people start with one set of core beliefs and never allow (or want) them to be changed. Often, that's "The Bible", whatever they perceive that to mean.

And the problem is that that's emphatically not based on what the world is actually like, either physically or socially.

So where pretty much everyone agrees that "don't kill other people" and "don't steal people's stuff" and "don't sleep with someone else's spouse" are good rules, religious books add other rules and notions. Demons and angels exist and influence daily life. An all powerful God makes things happen in people's lives, sometimes even when they ask for it. Some foods, animals, clothing, bodily functions, attractions and the like are ritually "unclean" and must be avoided. Women are inferior to men. Those who don't believe are inferior to those who do. Those who have different color skin are inferior. When we die, we transition to a better place or a worse place depending on how we behaved in life, or *not* depending on how we behaved in life.

And these beliefs often hold the same unquestioned status as "apples fall to the earth when dropped" and "the sun appears to rise in the east".

Ancillary points:
- I don't think we consciously pick and choose our irrationalities, but I don't think they're randomly selected, either.
- I've always been taken by the paucity of active angels and demons in the Bible, compared to the assertions of those who talk about them in their everyday lives.