You obviously haven't understood it, or have deliberately decided to misrepresent it. Its clear that we have to be careful when comparing welsh speakers and non-welsh speakers, reflecting possible other human capital differences. The authors control for these factors and confirm what I've said, referring directly to 'unexplained differences' (decomposition analysis for either negative discrimination or nepotism) being the primary explanation for the differential in the rest of Wales.
So if it is the significant factor that you are claiming, why does the Welsh Economy and Labour Market Evaluation and Research Centre (WELMERC) show such an apparent lack of focus on it? Why has it not produced a stream of papers about the significance of such linguistic 'nepotism' in the Welsh labour market? Why does it seem to concentrate so much more on issues like gender, age, disability, commuting and so on as significant factors in the labour market in Wales? Why in its 2002 document 'AN OVERVIEW OF THE WELSH LABOUR MARKET', does it fail to even mention it as an issue at all? Why does that report's conclusion read like this? If it's such a huge factor in Wales, why does the above paper not suggest that the issue of linguistic disparity that so nepotistically skews the labour market in Wales is a significant factor which needs to be considered when looking at the Welsh labour market overall? Why is such a research group, specifically dedicated to evaluating the labour market in Wales, and which even includes one of the authors of the report that it is being claimed shows how huge a factor it is, seem to be completely ignoring the issue? Could it be, perhaps, because it isn't a significant factor in the labour market in Wales at all?!
They clearly show its significance. You chose to pick and choose from the conclusion. Not a particularly honest tactic! The authors show that unexplained differentials, except for one area, are the norm in Wales (its of course been confirmed several times since). We have therefore evidence that confirms my stance. If you research the topic you'll note that the decomposition method that dominates this literature originates from Becker's 'taste for discrimination'. That approach leads to the use of 'unexplained differentials' to measure either discrimination against minorities or, in this case, evidence of nepotism Are there other issues that welsh economists will focus on? Of course! Skills deficiencies are a severe problem. Of course a basic understanding of opportunity costs will inform us that the nationalist language splurge is likely to inflame those problems
If it were claiming that this were the vast problem in the labour market in Wales that you are suggesting, the same authors would have concentrated on this in their later work in the research group dedicated to examining the labour market in Wales, or at least mentioned it as a factor. The fact that they haven't speaks volumes, obviously - it clearly isn't a particularly significant factor in itself at all. Of course, the people of Wales are quite used to this 'the language is holding you back - abandon it and declare yourselves English for your own good' nonsense from over the border (and even from some within the border). It's being going in for centuries - try looking up 'the treachery of the blue books'. In the past it was mainly supposed to be 'holding back the people of Wales' because it was 'backwards', and was an 'indication of poor education and ignorance' and a factor preventing people from doing well for themselves. Now it's apparently reversed - it's 'bad' because it supposedly 'skews the labour market in Wales by helping people to get jobs', so we should still be abandoning it 'for our own good'! Same old, same old, though - the people of Wales are still not going to be dumping their language anytime soon just because it somehow apparently offends the delicate ears of the people who don't speak it, and they'd just like it to go away so that we can just be more 'English'. It's here to stay, and widely supported by Welsh speakers and non-Welsh speakers alike (including various party political groups of 'socialists' - Plaid Cymru, The Socialist Party Wales, and the Labour Party, as well as the Welsh Liberal Democrats and the Welsh Conservatives).
I'm suggesting that the pursuit of the Welsh language in its current form is inconsistent with the objectives of socialism. The nepotism created, which you've attempted to ignore despite the empirical evidence, leads to further skewing of the labour market more consistent with the inefficiencies associated with capitalism. You haven't got an answer. The "Wales has other problems too" angle is shallow to the extreme
It's not that 'Wales has other problems too', it's that the problem that you are suggesting is such a big one, and inconsistant with socialism, is actually insigificant to the point of being totally irrelevant, even if it actually exists as an issue at all (a study which find some of the apparent statistical discrepancy to be 'unexplained', even though much of it can be 'explained' by factors such as education, does not really establish the firm basis for a proven cause and effect relationship!), and your anti-Welsh language line isn't supported by any political party in Wales, including the socialists! If it were such an issue, apparently disadvantaging 80% of the population, why is there not a single party highlighting it and standing on an electoral platform of NOT supporting the Welsh language? Wouldn't pointing out this problem and campaigning on it be a HUGE potential vote winner, if it were actually remotely relevant to the employment prospects of those 80% in the real world? Like I said, we have gone from 'dump the language for your own good because using it disadvantages people' to 'dump the language for your own good because using it gives people an advantage'! It's still nothing more than a feeble attempted justification of linguistic suppression and cultural supremecy, designed to somehow 'prove' that being and speaking English is just somehow 'better'. Such suggestions will, of course, be treated with the contempt they deserve, and the people of Wales will continue to support their language, not only as a part of their culture and heritage, but also as a part of daily life that they have every right to use as they go about their business in their own country (despite centuries of any 'official' use of the language being banned).
The evidence finds significant effects consistent with nepotism. Your bias towards the language is simply ensuring that you ignore that evidence and attempt to crow about other problems. Again, nepotism in wages- an inefficient form of wage differential extensively used in capitalism- is not consistent with socialism. Its very existence is a kick in the socialist's knackers.
To repeat myself: A study which find some of the apparent statistical discrepancy to be 'unexplained', even though much of it can be 'explained' by factors such as education, does not really establish the firm basis for a proven cause and effect relationship! As for the wage differential, the report itself states that this hasn't actually been addressed, because reliable information on it doesn't exist - they have merely made an assumption on the basis of their other findings. It has also been effectively shown to not be at all 'significant', by simple virtue of the fact that the people engaged specifically in researching the Welsh Labour Market (being aware of this report, having written it!), are not researching or even mentioning it as a factor in the Welsh labour market (the only time they do mention it is in respect to economic inactivity, and there they point out that there is no significant difference worth exploring anyway!). If it were a 'significant' issue in the Welsh labour market they would be directing at least some of their research towards looking into the 'problem'. They aren't, therefore clearly it isn't!
And that's the problem. You've constructed your counter-argument on hot air. You cannot deny that nepotism is a significant issue in wage differentials (the evidence shows otherwise). You cannot deny that such nepotism is alien to the socialist outcome, based on compensation according to the value of one's labour. Now there is no problem with supporting the Welsh language. A little honesty about the impact of the current policies, however, should be observed! Wrong again! I've already informed you how the decomposition methodology works. We have to distinguish between explained and unexplained differentials. The latter is typically used to show discrimination against ethnic minorities. Here its clear evidence of a nepotism effect where wages exceed the rate reflecting human capital criteria. Wrong again! The evidence sourced finds significant effects, by definition. Insignificant results would lead to zero unexplained differentials. Again, you've allowed your bias to misrepresent the evidence.
No, it doesn't. You have presented one piece of evidence, which does not in itself prove anything like the effects of Welsh speaking being a 'significant' distortion of the labour market in Wales, despite you assertions to the contrary. To suggest otherwise is over-egging the pudding, to say the least, and clearly NONE of the major groups of socialists in Wales agree with your suggestion that support for the Welsh language conflicts in any way with their socialist ideals on that basis, or any other.
Again, you're either misrepresenting the evidence or you don't understand it. Regression analysis is used to distinguish between explained and unexplained differentials. We are talking about significant effects, by definition! Again, deliberate misrepresentation. I've referred directly to nepotism and I referred directly to an empirical source that tests for those effects. Those effects are found to be significant. You may not like that, but that's irrelevant. What continues to be relevant is the inconsistency of nepotism with socialist goals!
The source does not suggest that there is 'significant' distortion of the labour market in Wales due to 'nepotism' on linguistic grounds, the authors themselves (by their later actions) clearly don't feel the issue to be 'significant' in terms of distorting the Welsh labour market, and clearly no political party, socialist or otherwise, finds the issue to be a 'significant' problem either. Those who do find linguistic nepotism in the Welsh labour market to be a 'significant' problem appear at the moment to be in a minority of one! That one has also ignored the possible causes for the discrepancies that the report itself suggest, which have nothing to do with nepotism, including not only the education issue, but issues such as an increased likelihood of educated Welsh speakers to remain in, and move around within, Wales (to those areas where the percentage of Welsh speakers is lower, and where the 'issue' is most noticable) rather than crossing the border, as compared with their non-Welsh speaking counterparts. The report does not 'prove' that any discrepancies are due purely to 'nepotism' at all, and nor does it prove that the issue causes a 'significant' distortion in the labour market.
Again, you're misrepresenting it. It finds significant unexplained differentials completely consistent with nepotism. By definition (there's no debate in it!), this is a significant distortion of the labour market. If those distortions weren't significant they wouldn't find unexplained wage differentials (we'd simply have the error structure in the regression picking up the differences in wage performance. So we have evidence consistent with my claim and we have a claim inconsistent with socialism. The socialists supporting these distortions are therefore either misinformed or hypocrites
So, since all of the main socialist groups in Wales openly support the Welsh language, the claim is that all of the socialists in Wales are hypocrites?! What a ridiculous assertion to make! The single study that had been presented shows nothing even vaguely approaching the grand claims of 'significance' that are being made of it - that can be quite easily seen by anyone who reads it. That is why such anti-Welsh language sentiments have pretty much zero political support in Wales, among the socialists, all of the other main political parties, and even among the non-Welsh speaking 80% of the population! All that has been proven here is that the Anglo-supremecist, anti-Welsh language agenda of the past is sadly still alive and well in some quarters, which underlines the need to continue to support the language against such continued groundless attacks.
If they support the current policies which have given up nepotistic wage inefficiency then they are either ignorant or hypocrites. Its based on knowing what socialism entails. You've allowed your nationalism to get in the way of 'correct' comment. You can keep repeating your misrepresentation, but it won't change the facts: (1) a significant unexplained wage differential, used within decomposition analysis to demonstrate either discrimination or nepotism, is found; (2) such nepotism isn't consistent with the premise that compensation should reflect productivity (i.e. we receive the value of our labour) The rest of your post had no content
And you can keep repeating yours, and continue to ignore whatever you don't like in terms of the noting of the bias caused by a cultural-supremecist agenda, of course, but it still leaves your opinion being that of a minority of one!
I keep making accurate comment. Significant nepotism is found (its a regression analysis after all) and such effects aren't consistent with the socialist objective. Even if that was the case it wouldn't matter. My accuracy is tip top. I've made comment, used empirical evidence in support and concluded appropriately. You haven't! Your latest tactic is go for standard nationalistic jingoism
I vote for Plaid and I hope this new leader will do a good job. I hope to see Plaid go more to the left because Labour have moved to the right. I do not see any problem with her not speaking Welsh,fact is most people in Wales don't and they get by fine. Wales won the grand slam..its good to be Welsh.
