Juice

What does it mean that the other factors are held equal? If difference is negated doesn't that skew the results? I guess I don't understand the study

Importantly, this estimation assumes other factors associated with earning potential — for instance, gender, age, years of schooling, and location — are held equal.

See, the gender/pay gap is a myth! It's a height/pay gap!

Academia is a fucking joke

This is the general consensus among my reading group who regularly reads historical doorstops

I thought it was the dopey buzzard from Looney Tunes

"Homelander" is a fascist, "Homander" is what we make it

International worker solidarity!!!

What if all these years of people complaining about gluten, it was actually this poison making them sick?

Omg guess I'll go buy gold about it

Here is a previous response to this question, I feel like a lot of socialists come off as having changed the definition of "liberal" when actually it was the capitalists who changed it.

One important distinction is, there is no separation between the social and the economic: Economics are a social relation. False distinctions like this are an example of the sort of thinking that we often criticize.

Liberals emerged as the opposition to the feudal system, along with enlightenment philosophy, science, industrialization, etc. Revolutionary liberals wanted freedom, democracy, self determination, independence, freedom of movement, and a world without the tyranny of a king. The class that emerged during these periods was the capitalists who also wanted to get away from the feudal system ruled by nobles and the church, who said, "the way to get rid of these feudal relations and get freedom, democracy and independence is a system built around private property rights." But of course once the capitalists seized power and owned everything, those other values of self determination, freedom, independence all became wrapped up in and subordinated to private property.

Now when people talk about these values, the only one that really has any social substance is property. Socialists are in many ways the inheritors of that first mission that early radical liberals were fighting for, but when we talk about liberals, what we mean is anyone who believes that private property is a core political and social value to uphold. This includes most conservatives and what would traditionally be considered as liberals, like the Democratic party. But we recognize that private property and capitalism was not the way to win freedom from tyranny, it was just a new form of tyranny. It was a big con, a game of switcheroo, and it continues to be that to this day. Liberals can't really see it because there are things that they believe to be essential and natural that are really social and historically contingent. But becoming a socialist we have to sort of de-liberalize in that we purge those core beliefs that uphold private property and dictatorship of capitalists, which has this weird side effect of always having to distinguish our socialist beliefs from liberalism.

Monopolies don't exist under capitalism