Apple employee spouse stages wacky weekend protest

12346

Comments

  • gongon Posts: 2,437member
    I resented schmidm77's comment about <40hrs working people being lazy and having no ambition, but he retracted it. I stand by the rest of his opinion, especially regarding minimum wage and overtime laws.



    Chris, do you realize that schmidm77 only wants the freedom to write his own work contracts in a way that is suitable for him? He's not intent on forcing you or anybody else to do more than 40 hours a week. If you want 40 hours and absolutely no overtime, that should be between you and your employer.



    Personally, I live in a country with extremely progressive income taxes and heavy support for studying. The logical plan for the future in this situation involves working very little, studying a lot, which lets me up the price of my few work hours while still remaining under the radar of progression. If I want to start earning seriously, I'll carry my intellectual capital to another country with tolerable taxes. This is what happens when you tax people enough. Eventually there will be no one left to pay and they have to change the system, only then the economy will not have enough life in it to adjust fast, and the repercussions won't be fun.
  • chris cuillachris cuilla Posts: 4,825member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by Gon

    Chris, do you realize that schmidm77 only wants the freedom to write his own work contracts in a way that is suitable for him? He's not intent on forcing you or anybody else to do more than 40 hours a week. If you want 40 hours and absolutely no overtime, that should be between you and your employer.



    I don't really know what his intents are. But I am all for freedom to engage in employment at will. I never said anything about overtime laws or whatnot. In fact I really wasn't talking so much about laws as the employment/cultural/family issues connected with regularly working lots o' hours every week. While I don't know that I have a particular opinion about overtime pay laws...I do think as a society we must be careful about abuses of power in asymmetrical power situations. More plainly...when someone (whether is it business or any other entity/person) has too much power over someone else, there is opportunity for abuse (e.g., "you work for a fixed rate for however many hours I say") then, we as a society (I believe anyway) have a moral obligation to correct or stop that abuse.
  • gregalexandergregalexander Posts: 1,344member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by Chris Cuilla

    Look, the statement "Full-time working women are paid on average 24 cents less than men on every male-earned dollar." leads any reasonable person to the conclusion that two comparably skilled, experience and educated individuals holding a comparable job...if one is female she'll (on average) earn 24% less than the male would. This is exactly what the statement leads people to believe.



    I agree that most people will assume you are talking about people doing the same jobs. As you say, stats can be misleading - and so can the English language.

    Quote:

    Originally posted by Chris Cuilla

    So I (actually a friend of mine) raised the question...if this is so, why doesn't some enterprising company simply begin firing its male employees in favor of cheaper female labor?



    Your friend's question breaks the assumption above in a very nice way. He makes a totally different assumption - he finds an effective counter example and assumes that it negates the whole original statistic. Also misleading.



    If we wanted to REALLY understand what's going on, we need a question which removes some of those assumptions. Something like "Where do the differences in income occur?" (etc)

    Quote:

    Originally posted by Chris Cuilla

    In response, you suggested that it wasn't necessarily an equal pay for equal work gap as much as a unequal distribution into all jobs (particularly higher paying jobs). Which is a different kind of a statistic or problem.



    That was my response, not ShawnJ's.



    I suggested what the differences might account for (led both by the original general statement and your friend's question), to determine what might be going on.



    If there is a specific problem but we apply a general statistic to it, will we address the specific problem?



    To bring this back to Apple (and making up percentages) - saying that Apple has 3% of the market and Microsoft has 90% has certain connotations. Saying Apple has 3% and Packard Bell has 5% has different ones again. Saying Apple has far less software than MS is also 'true', as is "I can do everything I want and need to do at work on a Mac or PC".



    Lots of words and assumptions, getting to the crux of any matter is difficult, and different for different people.
  • chris cuillachris cuilla Posts: 4,825member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by GregAlexander

    Your friend's question breaks the assumption above in a very nice way. He makes a totally different assumption - he finds an effective counter example and assumes that it negates the whole original statistic. Also misleading.



    I think he (and I) were really trying to force a dialogue around the statement. Not so much assert another assumption as being correct (at least speaking for myself). Often the best way to do this is to go (perhaps outrageously) and the opposite direction. It wakes people. Sometimes it even makes them think.
  • gregalexandergregalexander Posts: 1,344member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by Chris Cuilla

    I think he (and I) were really trying to force a dialogue around the statement. Not so much assert another assumption as being correct (at least speaking for myself). Often the best way to do this is to go (perhaps outrageously) and the opposite direction. It wakes people. Sometimes it even makes them think.



    Yeah that can be very effective. So long as at the end of the dialogue neither assumption is held, you're in a better place. Some people don't understand the limits of their own counter argument.
  • kapaokapao Posts: 2member
    Recently KAPAO returned to Apple with a ten year old who hasn't been able to spend a day with her mom in 25 days. Over the family bullhorn, she was singing "If you're happy about overtime clap your hands" GUESS WHO CLAPPED? Her mother's boss! You can get the latest details at kapao.org
  • newnew Posts: 3,244member
    I like the interview with santa.
  • trumptmantrumptman Posts: 16,299member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by ShawnJ

    I'm curious as to how you come to this conclusion. If you separately average all male earnings and all female earnings, an earnings ratio exists that is not 1:1. It's absolutely necessary to conclude a pay gap exists, since men on average earn 24% more than women. That's across the entire U.S. labor market. If you take a look at individual occupations, pay gaps exist to the extent that men earn more than women in all occupations (although naturally the disparity varies). So whether a pay gap exists or not is easily answered by reports from the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS). The question is what accounts for the gap.



    On a related note, after a semester studying gender and work in my women's studies course of the same name, I couldn't remember why on earth the subject interested me. It almost turned me off to feminism, academically speaking at least. But I realize now that I merely enjoyed proving the issue was a problem or that it even existed, which a few here happily play their part. Final exam in that damn elective from hell tomorrow.




    On a related note, you've been told about ten times that all but about 2-4% of this gap is attributable to factors that are not related to gender at all. You've been told that full time is defined as anything above 32 hours and that most women work a little above that 32 hours while men on average work almost 50 hours. You've been told that while men and women might have the same degree level, being a college graduate with a bachelors degree for example, that women overwhelmingly tend to get their degrees in areas like Education and English while men flow more toward hard sciences which pay more on average. You've also been told that more women tend to leave the work force for a number of years to care for children and that is considered a voluntary and rewarding choice that is equal to work even though it is not reflected in an income statement.



    So for example your statement of a gap would be true with my wife and I even though we both work in a field that makes it impossible to have gender bias. Our pay for work is determined by contract for the entire group and measures the number of units of college classes in addition to the number of years experience. In otherwords, it is impossible for someone to look at my wife, see she is a woman, and pay her less because of that fact. Yet we will have a pay gap if she ever decides to go back to work because she has decided to likely take a minimum of ten years off in order to stay home and raise our children.



    Additionally you've had it pointed out to you that it doesn't really matter who earns it, but who gets to SPEND it. In this matter women overwhelmingly win. When looking at the number of products, ads, etc that are introduced/placed for men versus women, women overwhelmingly win. Additionally when measuring the pure number of dollars spent, women win. My wife may earn $0 according to the federal government, but she spends practically every dollar that comes into our household.



    Yet you repeat this wage gap lie as a matter of gender inequity instead of a matter of gender choice. Why do you persist in being so dishonest?



    Nick
  • shawnjshawnj Posts: 6,656member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by trumptman

    On a related note, you've been told about ten times that all but about 2-4% of this gap is attributable to factors that are not related to gender at all. You've been told that full time is defined as anything above 32 hours and that most women work a little above that 32 hours while men on average work almost 50 hours. You've been told that while men and women might have the same degree level, being a college graduate with a bachelors degree for example, that women overwhelmingly tend to get their degrees in areas like Education and English while men flow more toward hard sciences which pay more on average. You've also been told that more women tend to leave the work force for a number of years to care for children and that is considered a voluntary and rewarding choice that is equal to work even though it is not reflected in an income statement.



    So for example your statement of a gap would be true with my wife and I even though we both work in a field that makes it impossible to have gender bias. Our pay for work is determined by contract for the entire group and measures the number of units of college classes in addition to the number of years experience. In otherwords, it is impossible for someone to look at my wife, see she is a woman, and pay her less because of that fact. Yet we will have a pay gap if she ever decides to go back to work because she has decided to likely take a minimum of ten years off in order to stay home and raise our children.



    Additionally you've had it pointed out to you that it doesn't really matter who earns it, but who gets to SPEND it. In this matter women overwhelmingly win. When looking at the number of products, ads, etc that are introduced/placed for men versus women, women overwhelmingly win. Additionally when measuring the pure number of dollars spent, women win. My wife may earn $0 according to the federal government, but she spends practically every dollar that comes into our household.



    Yet you repeat this wage gap lie as a matter of gender inequity instead of a matter of gender choice. Why do you persist in being so dishonest?



    Nick




    I like being dishonest. Really. It's fun. I spent a whole semester studying nearly all aspects of gender and work in a class of the same name-- just so i could impart my dishonest knowledge to everyone here. You got me pegged. Nick, I'll get to everyone's very large misunderstandings within a few days.
  • trumptmantrumptman Posts: 16,299member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by ShawnJ

    I like being dishonest. Really. It's fun. I spent a whole semester studying nearly all aspects of gender and work in a class of the same name-- just so i could impart my dishonest knowledge to everyone here. You got me pegged. Nick, I'll get to everyone's very large misunderstandings within a few days.



    Sure, you tell us how a women's studies class taught at a small, private, liberal arts college in the east and the books you read in them can equal reality and thus correct our "misunderstandings" that occur in said actual reality.



    Nick
  • newnew Posts: 3,244member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by trumptman

    Sure, you tell us how a women's studies class taught at a small, private, liberal arts college in the east and the books you read in them can equal reality and thus correct our "misunderstandings" that occur in said actual reality.



    Nick




    Isn't it true that traditional male careers like, say teaching, tend to lose status and fall in salary as they become "female dominated"? True or false, nick?



    Care to speculate on why parking attendants are payed more than day-care workers?
  • andersanders Posts: 6,523member
    Or why I got more sorting coca-cola bottles (male dominated but only required the ability to distinguish between different bottles) than when I worked in a customer service frontline (dominated by women, requiring high school education).
  • trumptmantrumptman Posts: 16,299member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by New

    Isn't it true that traditional male careers like, say teaching, tend to lose status and fall in salary as they become "female dominated"? True or false, nick?



    Care to speculate on why parking attendants are payed more than day-care workers?




    I wouldn't describe teaching as male dominated or even as traditionally such.



    Also I can speculate on why what you say might be true, but realize you've provided no proof for your assertion that parking attendants earn more than day-care workers.



    I do have a very unique perspective in that I have come through and done many of jobs that are very traditionally female oriented. I, for example, have worked as a day care teacher.



    So let me tell you what I saw while working such a job for example. First almost all women who were working day care had children in day care. They got to place their own children at their place of work and keep them there for free. These benefits, free day care, and having your children under your ready supervision, are worth very much in the female value system. The cash value of the benefit is probably about $160-$200 a week in addition to whatever they would earn (more if there are more than say, two children.) The fact that they get to keep their children under their own eye as opposed to being with total strangers is pretty much invaluable. Your "uniform" often consists of very comfortable clothes, especially tennis shoes. Your co-workers consist of people who are pretty much your equal, and likely have much in common with you. They often are easy to talk to, get along with, and you can share duties and responsibilities easy.



    The hours most day care establishments operate are Monday through Friday from about 6am to 6pm with most major holidays off. This often means no possibility of weekend work, and having the days you want off most, free automatically. It means no possibility of graveyard shifts, odd or late hours. The environment in which you work is mostly indoors, and almost always air conditioned. There is no concern of say, robbery or managing large sums of cash or valuables that would make you a criminal target.



    In contrast with even something as mundane as say, a parking lot attendant, you are often working in a booth, seldom with air conditioning. You have the possibility of weekend work, late night work, and holiday work. The job involves people who may attempt confront you and not pay. You could be a criminal target for cash or be treated in a hostile manner if someone believes something has happened to their car under your watch. You are absolutely not allowed to bring your children to work and must pay for someone else to watch them. Your work is boring and you likely have no co-workers with whom you can converse.



    Now you can claim this is all bullshit that I have made up, but the reality is that you know plenty of females and males. Do a little survey of your own. Create a job of day care worker working Monday through Friday from say, 6am-3pm for $7.00 per hour or Parking Lot Attendant from say, Wednesday through Sunday from 3pm-12am at $8.00-$8.25 per hour. Find any female with children that you know and ask them which they would take. If they won't take the parking lot attendant job, ask them why and see how many of the reasons I listed are given. For fun you might even ask them at what salary per hour they would consider the parking lot attendant job. You might be very surprised by their response. I would bet that at least half would never consider the job period and the other half would probably need at least ten dollars per hour to overcome their resistance.



    Try it and let me know what you find. I work in a field that is almost 95% female. I have lots of experience with what women want in a job.



    Nick
  • kapaokapao Posts: 2member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by New

    I like the interview with santa.





    Yes, Santa knows what elf labor problems are like, and what one highly motivated elf can do.
  • shawnjshawnj Posts: 6,656member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by trumptman

    Sure, you tell us how a women's studies class taught at a small, private, liberal arts college in the east and the books you read in them can equal reality and thus correct our "misunderstandings" that occur in said actual reality.



    Nick




    That's my job.



    Sociological case studies *are* in fact heavily based on findings in the real world. To suggest otherwise shows either that you haven't read any or that you somehow missed the obvious: population surveys, interviews, original field research and observations, etc. You could debate flaws in the research methods in each study, but you can't dismiss the entire field as irrelevant because "we read books." Personally, while the readings are interesting, the material is far too dry to major in. I just can't devote all of my intellectual energies to real-world "findings," like a sociologist does. That's why I'm an English Lit major. 4.0 in my major I might add.



    That's a remarkably broad misconception, but let's get into a few more specific ones. New brought up an excellent point, that female dominated jobs pay less than male dominated jobs. That's indisputable. Save your energy for other points because every set of data from the BLS disproves any notion to the contrary. You can't argue against that fact. You can justify it, but you can't argue against it. (This pdf table unfortunately shows that men make more than women in *all* occupations. And it takes a little work, but you can also see that female dominated jobs pay less than male dominated jobs)



    He also brought up a more contentious point, that female dominated jobs pay less than comparable male-dominated jobs, such as daycare workers and parking attendants, respectively. This is true, but your attempt to evaluate the two different jobs is messy and imprecise. What's comparable? Well, employers sometimes implement comparable worth policies to help mitigate the gender wage gap. They do so by using a point system that ranks a set of variables (skill, education required, effort, stress, etc) on a scale from 1-100, the total amount of points adding up to 100. They then evaluate each job according to this point system, deciding how many points a particular job fulfills for each variable on the scale. The total determines which jobs receive pay raises. So it's not just one or two highly disputable points that you've conjured but many factors considered systematically.



    I'll be back later.
  • trumptmantrumptman Posts: 16,299member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by ShawnJ

    That's my job.



    Sociological case studies *are* in fact heavily based on findings in the real world. To suggest otherwise shows either that you haven't read any or that you somehow missed the obvious: population surveys, interviews, original field research and observations, etc. You could debate flaws in the research methods in each study, but you can't dismiss the entire field as irrelevant because "we read books."




    I believe these flaws are exactly what I bring up. Your own link shows the flaw of measuring work in weekly units when it is clearly possible to show the work in hourly units. Hourly units are a well understood and commonly accepted means of measuring work done and pay for that work. The fact that they stick to weekly would be akin to measuring people exclusively in meters and using no centimeters.



    The fact that full time work is defined as anything above 32 hours per week and that women often work little more than that 32 hours while men work closer to 50 hours has been brought to your attention. Yet you bring up measures that still deal with weekly salary and wonder why I don't give them any more validation than I would a measure that claimed you were two meters tall and your girlfriend, one meter tall.



    it shouldn't be hard to get a concession, even from one as politically motivated as yourself, that when doing a study, you attempt to use the most precise and sensitive units of measure available. Using weeks when measuring salary is no where near the most precise measure. They have the ability to not only break down salary per hour, they have the ability to break it down to salary per hour worked , per year of experience and per degree earned and in what field. Those precise measures do not yield a significant wage gap. They are not used in presentations such as yours because some organizations find it politically desirable to divide people.



    Quote:

    Personally, while the readings are interesting, the material is far too dry to major in. I just can't devote all of my intellectual energies to real-world "findings," like a sociologist does. That's why I'm an English Lit major. 4.0 in my major I might add.



    Hahahaha, speaking of underpaid majors. Make sure to continue that law degree Shawn, because English Lit plus a nickle might get you a cup of coffee in reality. Don't worry a degree in Music requires a dime to get the same cup of coffee.



    Quote:

    That's a remarkably broad misconception, but let's get into a few more specific ones. New brought up an excellent point, that female dominated jobs pay less than male dominated jobs. That's indisputable. Save your energy for other points because every set of data from the BLS disproves any notion to the contrary. You can't argue against that fact. You can justify it, but you can't argue against it. (This pdf table unfortunately shows that men make more than women in *all* occupations. And it takes a little work, but you can also see that female dominated jobs pay less than male dominated jobs)



    Wouldn't it be intelligent to ask what other variables besides pay cause a job to be female or male dominated? I brought up those variables and you are welcome to survey any group of women who have children that you care to regarding and watch them choose the "female dominated" job for exactly the rationales I gave. It is clear women consider more than purely salary when considering a job. Any study that does not measure these factors is again, a flawed study. It is also why so many measures of comparibility fall short. You go ask a hundred women with children whether they would take the day care job or the parking attendant job and you will watch the reasoning at work.



    In the tables you provided it clearly shows even in elementary education, a field that is made of not only majority women, but majority white, highly educated women, that they still earn less weekly than men on average. Yet the union contracts make it impossible to reward individual incentive. The organizational chart for most schools is basically flat with no means of men advancing disproportionately to say, Teacher I which would pay more than say a Teacher III and leaving women behind. Yet the disparity is still over 10% on a system where bias is impossible. It simply shows that the measurement being used is inprecise and politically motivated. It is not possible to use gender to advance under an elemantary school union contract. Any measure that claims so is a flawed measure. What it fails to measure, experience, hours worked, educational level, etc. is what creates that disparity, not gender bias.



    Quote:

    He also brought up a more contentious point, that female dominated jobs pay less than comparable male-dominated jobs, such as daycare workers and parking attendants, respectively. This is true, but your attempt to evaluate the two different jobs is messy and imprecise.



    My attempt was exactly what was asked for, speculation as to why day care would pay less than a parking attendant when the two are "comparible." Yet I would challenge you to see how terrible the measures of comparibility truly are by conducting a survey of your own. I know the results wouldn't even be close when dealing with women with children. Also who created the comparibility index? Was it a bunch of white males? Should we call it a patriachal comparibility index since it is clear it does not include factor most women would clear consider in their job decisions like not just job security, but physical security from crime?



    The fact that you would consider a parking lot attendant comparible to a day care worker shows your own male values. Survey some female values and don't be surprised if the results mirror exactly what I mentioned.



    Quote:

    What's comparable? Well, employers sometimes implement comparable worth policies to help mitigate the gender wage gap. They do so by using a point system that ranks a set of variables (skill, education required, effort, stress, etc) on a scale from 1-100, the total amount of points adding up to 100. They then evaluate each job according to this point system, deciding how many points a particular job fulfills for each variable on the scale. The total determines which jobs receive pay raises. So it's not just one or two highly disputable points that you've conjured but many factors considered systematically.



    Obviously if the system they created were truly efficient, women would gladly flow into the jobs that had been equalized. My contention is that women and their input has not been sought enough and that as a result, the factors that measure if a job comparible are imprecise and as a result, inefficient.



    Before you come back, do us all a favor, address the points I mentioned and find wage studies that use precise measurements. It truly is pointless to discuss wages at the weekly level when it can lead to gaps larger than 10% even in systems in which gender bias is impossible. I wouldn't waste my time with surveys that said most men are two meters tall and most women one, and I shouldn't with wage surveys that are just as imprecise.



    Nick
  • shawnjshawnj Posts: 6,656member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by trumptman

    I believe these flaws are exactly what I bring up. Your own link shows the flaw of measuring work in weekly units when it is clearly possible to show the work in hourly units. Hourly units are a well understood and commonly accepted means of measuring work done and pay for that work. The fact that they stick to weekly would be akin to measuring people exclusively in meters and using no centimeters.



    Um. The table shows median weekly earnings. That's not a flaw. It's a valid statistic.



    Quote:

    Originally posted by trumptman

    The fact that full time work is defined as anything above 32 hours per week and that women often work little more than that 32 hours while men work closer to 50 hours has been brought to your attention. Yet you bring up measures that still deal with weekly salary and wonder why I don't give them any more validation than I would a measure that claimed you were two meters tall and your girlfriend, one meter tall.



    Well, here you're plainly wrong. Table 17 (PDF) in Women in the Labor Force: Databook (BLS) (PDF) shows that full time working women on average work 36.2 hours compared to 42.4 for men. You overestimated the gap by nearly 2/3rds. Men put in longer hours outside the home, to be sure, but women work what's known as a "second shift" of unpaid labor, which includes domestic responsibilities and childcare. Sociologists Hochschild and Machung found that women work an extra 15 hours longer than men each week. More than that unpaid.



    Quote:

    Originally posted by trumptman

    it shouldn't be hard to get a concession, even from one as politically motivated as yourself, that when doing a study, you attempt to use the most precise and sensitive units of measure available. Using weeks when measuring salary is no where near the most precise measure.



    Before you come back, do us all a favor, address the points I mentioned and find wage studies that use precise measurements. It truly is pointless to discuss wages at the weekly level when it can lead to gaps larger than 10% even in systems in which gender bias is impossible. I wouldn't waste my time with surveys that said most men are two meters tall and most women one, and I shouldn't with wage surveys that are just as imprecise.




    Let's measure in pennies and nanoseconds. Preciso, no?



    As far as being "politically motivated," my only concern is egalitarianism. And it's a cheap, horribly compromised concern at that given our economic system. This course has done far more to turn me off to feminism than anything. The issues here are almost exclusively about equal access to an inherently unequal system. Blegh. And I have to argue with people here and elsewhere about that even. It's enough to make me sick-- or apathetic.



    Quote:

    Originally posted by trumptman

    They have the ability to not only break down salary per hour, they have the ability to break it down to salary per hour worked , per year of experience and per degree earned and in what field. Those precise measures do not yield a significant wage gap. They are not used in presentations such as yours because some organizations find it politically desirable to divide people.





    Ahem. I quote that table from the REPUBLICAN administered DOL-- the same one that eliminated the department's "Equal Pay Matters Initiative, removed all information about narrowing the wage gap from its Web site, and refused to use available tools to identify violations of equal pay laws," according to the National Committee on Pay Equity.



    There are pages and pages of tables on the databook I linked to.



    Quote:

    Originally posted by trumptman

    Hahahaha, speaking of underpaid majors. Make sure to continue that law degree Shawn, because English Lit plus a nickle might get you a cup of coffee in reality. Don't worry a degree in Music requires a dime to get the same cup of coffee.



    I know. It's ridiculously impractical-- but I'm fortunate enough to have the opportunity to study what I love. I intend to be personally responsible by not wasting the opportunity and socially responsible by broadening that opportunity to more people.



    Quote:

    Originally posted by trumptman

    Wouldn't it be intelligent to ask what other variables besides pay cause a job to be female or male dominated? I brought up those variables and you are welcome to survey any group of women who have children that you care to regarding and watch them choose the "female dominated" job for exactly the rationales I gave. It is clear women consider more than purely salary when considering a job. Any study that does not measure these factors is again, a flawed study. It is also why so many measures of comparibility fall short. You go ask a hundred women with children whether they would take the day care job or the parking attendant job and you will watch the reasoning at work.



    So certain factors cause women to choose certain occupations over another. Of course.



    Quote:

    Originally posted by trumptman

    In the tables you provided it clearly shows even in elementary education, a field that is made of not only majority women, but majority white, highly educated women, that they still earn less weekly than men on average. Yet the union contracts make it impossible to reward individual incentive. The organizational chart for most schools is basically flat with no means of men advancing disproportionately to say, Teacher I which would pay more than say a Teacher III and leaving women behind. Yet the disparity is still over 10% on a system where bias is impossible. It simply shows that the measurement being used is inprecise and politically motivated. It is not possible to use gender to advance under an elemantary school union contract. Any measure that claims so is a flawed measure. What it fails to measure, experience, hours worked, educational level, etc. is what creates that disparity, not gender bias.



    You're trying to tell me that gender has absolutely *nothing* to do with experience, hours worked, and educational level (as well as educational concentration)? Gender doesn't inform those factors one bit? They exist totally separate from gender? So while men choose higher-paying math and science related majors while women choose lower-paying humanities related majors, it must be a mere koiny-dink? *Zero* correlation? Or when women work a "second shift" at home, which detracts from their paid labor in the marketplace? Gender must be hiding under the bed with the dust bunnies for that one. Or structuring work time to care for the kids and what not. You get the point.



    For some reason, the whole concept of "gender socialization" seems foreign to you, as if "gender" stops at merely the fact of being male, female, or whatnot. It doesn't. It informs much of our lives, actions, ambitions, career choices, and so on. I really can't understand any view to the contrary on this one-- one that suggests it *doesn't* inform those things on some level.



    Quote:

    Originally posted by trumptman

    My attempt was exactly what was asked for, speculation as to why day care would pay less than a parking attendant when the two are "comparible." Yet I would challenge you to see how terrible the measures of comparibility truly are by conducting a survey of your own.



    Gibberish.



    Quote:

    Originally posted by trumptman

    I know the results wouldn't even be close when dealing with women with children. Also who created the comparibility index? Was it a bunch of white males? Should we call it a patriachal comparibility index since it is clear it does not include factor most women would clear consider in their job decisions like not just job security, but physical security from crime?



    Rephrased gibberish.



    Quote:

    Originally posted by trumptman

    The fact that you would consider a parking lot attendant comparible to a day care worker shows your own male values. Survey some female values and don't be surprised if the results mirror exactly what I mentioned.



    I don't. I haven't implemented a comparable worth policy so I have no idea how the two occupations really compare. I haven't thought about it.



    Quote:

    Originally posted by trumptman

    Obviously if the system they created were truly efficient, women would gladly flow into the jobs that had been equalized.



    Funny. Sociologists note the exact opposite phenomenon-- that comparable worth policies partially stem the flow of women into traditionally male and higher paying occupations, chiefly because the pay is now good in their own. Some consider it a limitation.



    Quote:

    Originally posted by trumptman

    My contention is that women and their input has not been sought enough and that as a result, the factors that measure if a job comparible are imprecise and as a result, inefficient.

    Nick




    Go for it.
  • trumptmantrumptman Posts: 16,299member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by ShawnJ

    Um. The table shows median weekly earnings. That's not a flaw. It's a valid statistic.



    Valid in that it states that there is a gap. It does not state nor is it correct to state that the gap is caused by sexism. The numbers can be correct, but that doesn't mean your conclusion about how those numbers add up has any merit.



    Quote:

    Well, here you're plainly wrong. Table 17 (PDF) in Women in the Labor Force: Databook (BLS) (PDF) shows that full time working women on average work 36.2 hours compared to 42.4 for men. You overestimated the gap by nearly 2/3rds. Men put in longer hours outside the home, to be sure, but women work what's known as a "second shift" of unpaid labor, which includes domestic responsibilities and childcare. Sociologists Hochschild and Machung found that women work an extra 15 hours longer than men each week. More than that unpaid.



    You're correct. I attempted to simply recall the numbers from memory and did so incorrectly. My general conclusion was correct though in that weekly salary would not take into account the fact that men work more hours than women and that any salary measure that does not take this into account is not going to be accurate. You've proven that my memory wasn't exact with the weekly hours worked, but that doesn't change the outcome of those numbers.



    If we take the just the pure number of hours worked and assume equal pay, we already have a pay gap of 15% just because women work fewer hours. All other variables could be equal and they would still make 15% less. Simply math dictates that you have to work the same number of hours to earn the same amount of pay.



    As for your second shift assertion, it has been disproven by studies from the University of Michigan Institute for Social Research. Additionally that old study used definitions of housework that do not include tasks that men often undertake. Sure a man may not have cleaned the toilets, but if he washes both the family cars, that is considered "housework" in this modern age. Your study would not define it as such.



    Quote:

    Let's measure in pennies and nanoseconds. Preciso, no?



    Hey, there is a reason your local gas station charges you 9/10's of a penny. You should consider that.



    We can discuss how small a measure would be unreasonable, but the point remains that looking at hours alone accounts for 15% of the 22% gap, we should be willing to remove that from the catagory of gender bias.



    BTW, your own link here, puts the gap at 22% and you asserted in the first post it was 26%. Those darn slippery numbers.



    Quote:

    As far as being "politically motivated," my only concern is egalitarianism. And it's a cheap, horribly compromised concern at that given our economic system. This course has done far more to turn me off to feminism than anything. The issues here are almost exclusively about equal access to an inherently unequal system. Blegh. And I have to argue with people here and elsewhere about that even. It's enough to make me sick-- or apathetic.



    You mean they didn't address why women avoid high paying death industry jobs and don't care to be "equal" in those fields? They didn't address that men are 16 out of every 17 work related deaths and yet women don't care to come into fields like Oil Rig Worker and even things out?



    Women do care about the glass ceiling, but they don't seem to care much about getting down into that high paying glass cellar where you trade money for risk of life. Perhaps when you have seen a few of your male friends mauled while working as say, a tow truck driver, you'll start to question if those men are truly as empowered as feminists claim they are and if they really are actively working to keep women out of their fields.



    Quote:

    Ahem. I quote that table from the REPUBLICAN administered DOL-- the same one that eliminated the department's "Equal Pay Matters Initiative, removed all information about narrowing the wage gap from its Web site, and refused to use available tools to identify violations of equal pay laws," according to the National Committee on Pay Equity.



    There are pages and pages of tables on the databook I linked to.



    And if that same Republican Administered DOL suddenly changed the previously published criteria you don't think the same groups that benefit from creating that wedge would create some sort of outcry? You show the same reasoning yourself. Any change in the criteria that the previous groups used to create their wedge issue is declared an attempt to harm the people with whom they have political designs. The headline on the DOL study that showed say a 1-2% gap when hours, education, experience, etc are factored in wouldn't be "Equality Achieved" it would be "Republicans distort studies in attempt to lie about gender gap."



    It always comes back to intent with folks such as yourself.



    Quote:

    I know. It's ridiculously impractical-- but I'm fortunate enough to have the opportunity to study what I love. I intend to be personally responsible by not wasting the opportunity and socially responsible by broadening that opportunity to more people.



    Yes, well I was equally impractical if not more so at your age. I was accepted into electrical engineering department at my university but instead ran off to toot my horn. I do hope you follow through with the teaching as it would be quite an experience widening opportunity for yourself.



    Quote:

    So certain factors cause women to choose certain occupations over another. Of course.



    Of course that also means that those factors do not have to be sexism. That is the contention with measures like the wage gap.



    Quote:

    You're trying to tell me that gender has absolutely *nothing* to do with experience, hours worked, and educational level (as well as educational concentration)? Gender doesn't inform those factors one bit? They exist totally separate from gender? So while men choose higher-paying math and science related majors while women choose lower-paying humanities related majors, it must be a mere koiny-dink? *Zero* correlation? Or when women work a "second shift" at home, which detracts from their paid labor in the marketplace? Gender must be hiding under the bed with the dust bunnies for that one. Or structuring work time to care for the kids and what not. You get the point.



    No, I'm trying to tell you that the results of those choices don't indicate sexism or an unempowered state among women. Very often they indicate quite the opposite and we should ask why women are allowed to make lifestyle choices that treat earning money as a secondary concern while men are not. To me, that indicates power, not weakness.



    When a woman goes through life making decisions that indicate that she knows that she can choice a less demanding field of study, or choose a career where long gaps in work history do not affect your ability to be employed later, it says to me that she knows some other variable is going to pick up the slack there. That variable of course is the man who will be subservient, not empowered, subservient to the needs of that woman.



    Choice is empowerment. Women show a wider range of choices because they are more empowered.



    I always find it strange that this is so easily understood when we talk about employer and employee with power and not man and woman with power.



    If your boss is able to spend more and work less because of his employee, that is not seen as a helpless state. When a woman can choose a certain career or part time work and not have it affect what she can spend (not earn) it is also not a helpless state.



    Quote:

    Gibberish.Rephrased gibberish.



    No more gibberish than using a 20+ year old second shift study which relied on even old studies and definitions for its conclusions. You dismiss that which you know would easily be true if you cared to do the survey.



    Quote:

    I don't. I haven't implemented a comparable worth policy so I have no idea how the two occupations really compare. I haven't thought about it.



    You are enlightened and intelligent enough to know which job you would choose and explain your reasoning behind it. You also know several equally enlightened and intelligent females (at least I would hope so) from whom you could seek the answers regarding their own choices and rationales. I'm sure they, like you, are probably pursuing their education and as a result won't have to weigh such options in their personal life. However you could ask them about a hypothetical and see their reasoning.



    Quote:

    Funny. Sociologists note the exact opposite phenomenon-- that comparable worth policies partially stem the flow of women into traditionally male and higher paying occupations, chiefly because the pay is now good in their own. Some consider it a limitation.



    It could also be a reflection of men entering the female fields and as a result women now being less empowered to leave their own professionals and feel they can easily come back to it now with more competition. Often the case is the higher the rewards, the higher the risks. When the reward becomes higher, leaving becomes riskier. Women now become another rat trying to climb that corporate ladder. Doesn't that sound empowered?



    Quote:

    Go for it.



    I cannot field my own university research department. I don't even have the time to say, pursue a second degree in Socialogy. However that doesn't we can't have a nice LONG discussion here.



    Nick
  • stonefreestonefree Posts: 242member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by schmidm77 View Post


    Well, I see that the Communists have come out to play.



    I can't speak for you, but I know that I was hired to preform a specific task, not just occupy one of my generous employer's desks for a span of time each day and perhaps get some work done in the process. So, if it takes me thirty-five hours to complete that task then I'm a happy guy, but if it takes my sixty, well then that is how long it takes me to get the job I was hired to do completed. I would say that I average fifty-five to sixty hours a week (yes, I am well paid for it too).



    See, I don't look at it as "overtime;" I look at is the time required for me to perform the task I agreed to do when I was hired. Like I said before, different work ethic I guess.



    I think it's hilarious when military people denounce communism. Joining the military is the closest thing you can get to communism without moving to Cuba. In the military the state owns you and controls every aspect of your life. It can do whatever it wants with you, send you off to wherever it feels like , assign you to whatever job it feels you're capable of. They can order you to commit illegal acts (such as torture)- if you disobey you are severely punished. If you obey and get caught by the wrong people (the media) you are severely punished. The senior officers and their civilian bosses who originated the order go unpunished. You can't leave (except under extreme circumstances). After you finish your enlistment, they have various ways to keep you from leaving if they need you (stop-loss, IRR). Of course there are benefits- you're provided housing, full health care for you and your family, and they may even send you off to school (fully paid for) if they see potential and need your skills to be developed further.



    How is all this different from communism?
  • hardeeharharhardeeharhar Posts: 4,841member
    what the hell?



    Go start a new thread...
Sign In or Register to comment.