JC Denton wrote on Feb 16
th, 2024 at 1:19pm:
Quote:The gap in earnings doesn't matter, access to above poverty enployment DOES matter, as the basis for ending poverty-level welfare dependency and eliminating the gap (as defined in government stats).
this is the sociologists fallacy yet again, its origin dates back a long time
https://emilkirkegaard.dk/en/2018/12/sociologists-fallacy-origins-of-the-term/ (.....article quoted.......)
"above poverty employment" will not eliminate the gap
if somehow you could get every single abo into "above poverty employment" (lmao), if there are cognitive differences between abos and white people and those cognitive differences are partially or entirely genetic
"Somehow" is easy - the government acts as employer of last resort. Everyone except the profoundly disabled can engage in useful work.
So your 2nd point is irrelevant, as far as finding useful work for everyone is concerned, ie, work which is compatible with the individual's abilities.
Quote:again we are getting back to what i was talking about before on the prior page, which you hand waved -
Explained above; you keep talking irrelevancies about genetics and IQ.
Quote:what if there were differences in cognitive ability between aboriginals and white people in australia, and those differences were at least 1% genetic?
Doesn't matter, as explained above, nearly everyone can do useful work of one sort or another.
Quote:how can you eliminate the gap in earnings etc
I already explained the gap in earning doesn't matter, what does matter is availability of an above poverty job for everyone...spot the difference?
Quote:by somehow 'eliminating' poverty when it isnt actually poverty that causes those behavioural differences in that instance (assume that its true)?
??
Poverty causes all sorts of behavioural changes; but it is
caused by lack of a job compatible with the individual's abilities, leading to welfare dependency.
I suspect your inability to grasp that simple point is due to your mainstream economics fallacies about the 'market-value' of work. Work has social value as well.
[eg the market 'values' the CEO of Coca-cola in the $millions, when in fact she is responsible for a diabetes and obesity epidemic; the person keeping a local public park tidy is "worth" far more, for the community's well-being].
Quote:poverty would merely CO-INCIDE with inherent cognitive differences, because stupid people generally dont earn as much as smarter people
All explained above. Government can act as employer of last resort, despite mainstrean economic theory about 'market value'.
Quote:hence the sociologist's fallacy - the equation of an environmental condition (in this instance, 'poverty') with a coinciding phenotype, and immediately assuming causation between the two, when the relationship could be mediated by a deeper variable, in this instance, genotypic differences
That's your error, not mine, as explained above.
Quote:SAT - or even IQ tests - are NOT relevent to the state ensuring everyone has an above-poverty job (rather than forcing people onto the unemployment scrap heap)
Ensuring the nation
most efficiently mobilizes its available resources (including labour) is relevant; SAT and IQ tests are only some of the issues the government needs to take into account to ensure real full employment.
Forum
Pages: 
