Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
You do realize that the Williams Institute is simply a lobbying outfit for the LGBT agenda and its kissing cousin the Democrat Party, don't you. Their report, which was barely even touched by any economist of any standing, is simply a crock.
Are you an economist of any standing? Are you qualified to perform a peer review of the study? Have you done so? Has it been published? As has been said before, your opinion is not fact or truth, despite your wish that would be so.
Are you an economist of any standing? Are you qualified to perform a peer review of the study? Have you done so? Has it been published? As has been said before, your opinion is not fact or truth, despite your wish that would be so.
As a matter of fact, I have indeed published papers on economics (although that's not my primary field) in archived, peer-reviewed journals, and have been called upon to review submissions. You can find my work in any major university library in any English-speaking country. So I would say yes, I am qualified to review the study.
So I would like to help you learn something here (you're welcome! ). As a first step, look at the qualifications of the primary authors. Do you see any economists among them, or do you see that they are all public policy types? Next, look at their "Institution's" statement of mission, which clearly precludes any attempt at a disinterested view of the topic. Then look at their postulates, which are nothing beyond mere speculation as to what could, might, or may happen.
Last edited by Hamish Forbes; 10-27-2016 at 03:48 PM..
Do you support Skvarla's claim of "neglible impact"?
I guess that you're asking me.
I'm not sure what the word "support" means in this context. Nevertheless . . .
I do know two relevant things: (1) Skvarla is certainly in a better position that either you or I to understand how the State's economy is performing; and (2) nobody will ever know how much of any change can be attributed to HB-2 -- there's no control experiment running in parallel, and we don't know how to isolate and quantify the various factors.
Thanks. I got a good laugh outta this one. Business has but one god, and that god is money.
OP -- are you familiar with the concept of "virtue signaling?" Some of the most odious organizations extant, for example the NCAA, or if you don't like that one how about Wells Fargo, purported great umbrage and shed gallons of crocodile tears over HB-2 in attempts to spiff-up their own images. More generally, one sees virtue signaling routinely by liberals.
Which is why businesses love gay employees. Few have family issues that require they take off work. Few; sick kids, kids' extracurricular activities they have to leave for, maternity/paternity leave, spouse and 3 kids insurance to subsidize, complaints about travel taking them away from their family, etc.
Have any companies with offices in NC opened up their bathrooms to all genders? I googled a few of the big named ones and not seen any headlines.
The issue is whether there is a bthroom for transgender people, which can include a "one seater" gender-neutral bathroom which many places already have.
Saying a transgender person may use the bathroom they are most comfortable with is not the equivalent of "opening bathrooms up to all genders", with no separate facilities.
The City council of Charlotte is 100% responsible.
Try again--they passed a CITY ordinance that affected their CITY, as City Councils are supposed to do. The Legislature then overshot and made blanket laws affected the entire STATE, not just Charlotte, and many issues far beyond the bathroom portion, knowing that most who support them wouldn't know enough to research the actual bill because they would get distracted by the false fears drummed up by social conservatives.
Anyone who signed that bill, either not knowing what was in it (irresponsible) or knowing all of the ramifications and how laughably overreaching it was to what one city did (slimy and underhanded) has no business in a government. The "bathroom part" of HB2 is not even the most egregious part by a long shot (although requiring people to carry around a birth certificate to meet the letter of the law is exactly the kind of thing that parody late-night shows rightly jump all over), rather the overturning of anti-discrimination laws having nothing to do with bathrooms OR Charlotte is the real sign to people everywhere that, whoa, this legislature is out of their minds with turning back the clock and making NC into a state that practices unnecessary discrimination simply for meanness. And then there's the whole minimum wage part AND the part that didn't allow lawsuit in state court. All of those were likely clauses "just waiting" to be tacked on to some random bill and the yahoos in Berger and Moore's camp were champing at the bit to find such a bill.
And never mind the expense of bringing everyone back for a day to do it. This will live in infamy in books of "ridiculous laws that once upon a time were passed by reactionary state legislatures".
Charlottes bill did open up the bathrooms for everyone. It says you cannot stop someone's actions based on gender identity and gender expression, but gives no guidance on what that even means so you end up with men in the women's locker room like they had in Seattle. we debated that to death in another thread. The gist was either you agree with what I just stated, or you call me obtuse, still agree with what I stated, but don't think it will be an issue like they had in Washington state. HB2 allows for special accommodations for those who cannot change their birth certificate or prefer single restrooms. HB2 does not mention enforcement, so there won't be Nazi republicans checking birth certificates like the previous thread thought. It gives the rest of society the right to call police when we find a lady gawking at us in the men's locker room, or the opposite for you ladies. If we lived in the utopia of Seattle, we would have to take the gawking because it is legal.
. . . this legislature is out of their minds with turning back the clock and making NC into a state that practices unnecessary discrimination simply for meanness.
Meanness? This is simply a silly idea.
Quote:
And then there's the whole minimum wage part . . .
Now you may be on to something. As they say in the movies, "follow the money."
As a matter of fact, I have indeed published papers on economics (although that's not my primary field) in archived, peer-reviewed journals, and have been called upon to review submissions. You can find my work in any major university library in any English-speaking country. So I would say yes, I am qualified to review the study.
So I would like to help you learn something here (you're welcome! ). As a first step, look at the qualifications of the primary authors. Do you see any economists among them, or do you see that they are all public policy types? Next, look at their "Institution's" statement of mission, which clearly precludes any attempt at a disinterested view of the topic. Then look at their postulates, which are nothing beyond mere speculation as to what could, might, or may happen.
So you're not an economist of any standing. Got it, thanks. And, for obvious reasons, I'm giving no credence to anonymous claims of grandeur on the internet. In any event, you're clearly biased and have a political axe to grind, so your opinions carry little credence.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
). As a first step, look at the qualifications of the primary authors. Do you see any economists among them, or do you see that they are all public policy types? Next, look at their "Institution's" statement of mission, which clearly precludes any attempt at a disinterested view of the topic. Then look at their postulates, which are nothing beyond mere speculation as to what could, might, or may happen.
