so the "counter" argument to this flat-out says that the real wage difference is somewhere between 9% and 13%, not 26%.
that's exactly the kind of crap that people complain about. they know that the real wage difference is only 9 to 13 percent, yet don't use that number in their pamphlets do they?
of course, OVER HALF of the wage difference is accounted for because women DON'T STAY AT THEIR JOBS and are LESS EDUCATED.
that doesn't even account for the difference in hours worked. (35 hours vs. 60 hours)
No, the argument is that the real wage difference (full-time; average) is 26%. The part that discrimination likely accounts for is between 9% and 13%.
According to experts and the literature, women are more likely than men to have primary responsibility for family, and as a result, working women with family responsibilities must make a variety of decisions to manage these responsibilities. For example, these decisions may include what types of jobs women choose as well as decisions they make about how, when, and where they do their work. These decisions may have specific consequences for their career advancement or earnings. However, debate exists whether these decisions are freely made or influenced by discrimination in society or in the workplace.
Potential for Direct or Indirect Discrimination
Debate exists whether decisions that women make to manage work and family responsibilities are freely made or influenced by underlying discrimination. Some experts believe that women are free to make choices about work and family, and willingly accept the earnings consequences. Specifically, certain experts believe that some women place higher priority on home and family, and voluntarily trade off career advancement and earnings to focus on these responsibilities. Other experts believe that some women place similar priority on family and career. Alternatively, other women place higher priority on career and may delay or decide not to have children. However, other experts believe that underlying discrimination exists in the presumption that women have primary responsibility for home and family, and as a result, women are forced to make decisions to accommodate these responsibilities. One example of this is a woman who must work part time for childcare reasons, but would have preferred to work full time if she did not have this family responsibility. In addition, some experts also suggest that women face other societal and workplace discrimination that may result in lower earnings. However, according to other experts, although women may still face discrimination in the workplace, it is not a systematic problem and legal remedies are already in place. For example, Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibits employment discrimination based on gender.
According to some experts and literature, women face societal discrimination that may affect their career advancement and earnings. Some research suggests that the career aspirations of men and women may be influenced by societal norms about gender roles. For example, parents, peers, or institutions (such as schools or the media) may teach them that certain occupations?such as nursing or teaching, which tend to be relatively lower-paying?are identified with women while others are identified with men. As a result, men and women may view different fields or occupations as valuable or socially acceptable. According to some experts, societal discrimination may help explain why men and women tend to be concentrated in different occupations. For example, some research has found that women tend to be over-represented in clerical and service jobs, while men are disproportionately employed in blue-collar craft and laborer jobs. 7 Other research suggests that gender differences exist even among those who are college educated. For example, men tend to be concentrated in majors such as engineering and mathematics, while women are typically concentrated in majors such as social work and education. Research indicates that men and women who work in femaledominated occupations earn less than comparable workers in other occupations.
Additionally, some experts and literature suggest that women face discrimination in the workplace. This type of discrimination may affect what type of jobs women are hired into or whether they are promoted. In some cases, employers or clients may underestimate women?s abilities or male co-workers may resist working with women, particularly if women are in higher-level positions. Employers may also discriminate based on their presumptions about women as a group in terms of family responsibilities?rather than considering each woman?s individual situation. For example, employers may be less likely to hire or promote women because they assume that women may be less committed or may be more likely to quit for home and family reasons. To the extent that employers who offer higher-paying jobs discriminate against women in this way, women may not have the same earnings opportunities as men. Finally, other experts suggest that both men and women who are parents face discrimination in the workplace due to their family responsibilities in terms of hiring, promotions, and terminations on the job.
According to some literature, discrimination may occur if employers enact policies or practices that have a disproportionately negative impact on one group of workers, such as women with children. For example, if an employer has a policy that excludes part-time workers from promotions, this could have a significant effect on women because they are more likely to work part time. Other experts suggest that workplace practices reflecting ideal worker norms?such as requiring routine overtime for promotion?could be considered discrimination. This could impact women more (particularly mothers) and may result in a disproportionate number of men in high-level positions.
so the "counter" argument to this flat-out says that the real wage difference is somewhere between 9% and 13%, not 26%.
that's exactly the kind of crap that people complain about. they know that the real wage difference is only 9 to 13 percent, yet don't use that number in their pamphlets do they?
of course, OVER HALF of the wage difference is accounted for because women DON'T STAY AT THEIR JOBS and are LESS EDUCATED.
that doesn't even account for the difference in hours worked. (35 hours vs. 60 hours)
lame article.
The real wage gap IS 26%, but 10-15% of that can be accounted for by systematic differences in education, time off, etc. That doesn't mean it's not real.
What bothers me is the assumption that, because ~10% can't be explained, it MUST be discrimination. That's not the way it works folks. If it's discrimination, you've got to show it, not just assume that all unexplained factors are discrimination.
People who are taller get more money. That's been proven. So while the 74% figure might be wrong, the gap does exist. And that gap isn't caused by women making choices, but by men and women when hiring.
Wow, way to dismiss pages and pages of research with denial.
It isn't sexism, it is choices that lead to that gap. I've made the same choices as many women with regard to working as a teacher and trading more time off for less pay.
Assuming women falsely complain about a wage gap for empowerment reasons is misogynistic, and yes, name calling on my part. (Or at least sexist. Whichever one works for you.)
No, the argument is that the real wage difference (full-time; average) is 26%. The part that discrimination likely accounts for is between 9% and 13%.
EDIT: clarification.
Hello, the point is that government has a role in the 9-13% and the remaining differece is related to personal choices.
What role or right does the government have in dealing with personal choices?
Personal choices creating a wage gap isn't a even describing it correctly. It is simply making what you have chosen to make. When Shawn graduates from law school and is earning more than Nick, while working many more hours at a high rate of pay, that will reflect a difference in priorities and choices. I can't say I have a wage gap compared to you. We are paid different amounts for different job requirements. (including days and hours worked, education, etc.)
So I guess if you earn more than me in the future it is just a gap and I responded to my societal conditioning differently than you and thus you should equalize it.
Let me know when you will start mailing me those checks okay? I mean it isn't my fault. I'm just a victim of societal expectations.
Assuming women falsely complain about a wage gap for empowerment reasons is misogynistic, and yes, name calling on my part. (Or at least sexist. Whichever one works for you.)
Has any group in power not been corrupt? Women are between 55-60% of college students and graduates today. Men are 80% of dropouts, behavior referrals, special education referrals and graduate with lower grades and rates of achievement. What do we hear nationally? Women need special classes, and special programs because they still score lower in science and math.
No special programs for men.
You assign a word that is hateful merely for someone pointing out that those in power might not want to give it up. For the rest of the world, that is an easily understood fact, not proof of hatefulness.
The real wage gap IS 26%, but 10-15% of that can be accounted for by systematic differences in education, time off, etc. That doesn't mean it's not real.
What bothers me is the assumption that, because ~10% can't be explained, it MUST be discrimination. That's not the way it works folks. If it's discrimination, you've got to show it, not just assume that all unexplained factors are discrimination.
Wow, way to dismiss pages and pages of research with denial.
It isn't sexism, it is choices that lead to that gap. I've made the same choices as many women with regard to working as a teacher and trading more time off for less pay.
Are the evil men oppressing me too?
Nick
I said "...that gap isn't caused by women making choices, but by men and women when hiring." People hiring make decisions based off the dumbest things, and that sometimes screws women out of cash.
You can deny it, but you're wrong. That gap exists and some of it is covered by discrimination. Sorry.
Personally I'm referring to the gap that takes into account education level and years of service.
excellent. then we've gone from 26% to 11% (average between a possible 9 and 13%) hey, we just knocked the wage gap down by over 42%!!
now, do you want to take actual hours worked into account as well when we define wage gap, or are we going to say that working 35 hours is the same as working 60+ hours?
Upon further review I think I misunderstood your post. Were you being sarcastic (as in, you agree with BR, and you're simply saying the feminists will never admit to the conclusions in that summary), or were you saying something else?
Sorry if I mistook what you were saying. I only caught it after BR made a comment about being cynical, etc. Obviously I stand with BR's argument as well, just didn't think at first that you were.
I said "...that gap isn't caused by women making choices, but by men and women when hiring." People hiring make decisions based off the dumbest things, and that sometimes screws women out of cash.
You can deny it, but you're wrong. That gap exists and some of it is covered by discrimination. Sorry.
As BRussell pointed out, a gap can exist, and you ASSUME discrimination.
If you and I worked for the same employer for 3 years and I hated confrontation and you relished it, we might make different levels of money. You might walk in every 3-6 months and demand a raise. I, not wanting to cause a stir and personally feel more secure in my job, might just ask annually during a review or just accept what they give me.
If you made 10% more than me in three years, is that discrimination or you being more demanding?
It doesn't have to occur with the hiring, it can occur over the course of the job. It can occur at any time and it can occur for a multitude of reasons that are not related to discrimination.
When you apply it between two men, the answer isn't discrimination, why is it when one party is a woman?
excellent. then we've gone from 26% to 11% (average between a possible 9 and 13%) hey, we just knocked the wage gap down by over 42%!!
now, do you want to take actual hours worked into account as well when we define wage gap, or are we going to say that working 35 hours is the same as working 60+ hours?
We could include part-time workers and increase the wage-gap to 38%.
I agree with BR and the premise or "most important part" of the article. Present day America, for the most part, gives all groups equal opportunity. The exception, perhaps, is the failing of the inner city school systems who educate mostly black children. But that's another issue...
Women do in fact make less on average. But as stated earlier, there are a lot of reasons for that. In today's day and age, women doing the same job (at the same company) as a man make the same money. If they don't, there are lawsuits and rightly so. Comparing, as one poster said, "apples to oranges" is dangerous. As soon as we change the job (the company, geographic area, etc) the comparison goes to hell. No employer in this nation will get away with paying a woman less for the same work.
But why do women make less? It's true that some of it is choice. Women often leave work to raise familes and choose that success over professional success. When averaged out, it looks like women in general are getting a raw deal. In addition, it has only been recently (say, 20 years) that some fields (higher paying ones) have been really "open" to women. Some have not worked their way through the ladder yet, whereas many of the men have been working the steps of corporate America for 40 years or more. It takes time.
If anything, in my job and elsewhere I have seen women being hired at a higher rate than men for top positions. This is, of course, anecdotal. In my school district, the Superintendent, Assistant Superintendent, two elementary school principals and the middle school principal are all female. I know it's Education, but at one time my field was dominated by men, particularly at the secondary and post-secondary levels and administration. I see more women university presidents, administrators and certainly faculty.
That isn't misogyny. He isn't hating women there. He is hating what SOME women do to manipulate statistics to garner UNDESERVING sympathy and making the situation seem worse than it is.
Bit late in the day for me to repost but yes you've nailed it.
Hey Shawn, go grab a dictionary and look up the word " Misandry " ( that's if you find a dictionary with that word still allowed to be printed.)
You'll then understand my position a little bit clearer.
Ps I went to University in the 70's and at the height of the feminist revolution. You've got no idea what radical means until you've been spat on just for being a male...passing in a corridor....
Totally f..ked...
And now most of these loverly women err "Wymin" are in positions of "power ". it's just that they've become femanazis in the process..scary indeed.
Comments
Originally posted by alcimedes
so the "counter" argument to this flat-out says that the real wage difference is somewhere between 9% and 13%, not 26%.
that's exactly the kind of crap that people complain about. they know that the real wage difference is only 9 to 13 percent, yet don't use that number in their pamphlets do they?
of course, OVER HALF of the wage difference is accounted for because women DON'T STAY AT THEIR JOBS and are LESS EDUCATED.
that doesn't even account for the difference in hours worked. (35 hours vs. 60 hours)
No, the argument is that the real wage difference (full-time; average) is 26%. The part that discrimination likely accounts for is between 9% and 13%.
EDIT: clarification.
Summary of Results
According to experts and the literature, women are more likely than men to have primary responsibility for family, and as a result, working women with family responsibilities must make a variety of decisions to manage these responsibilities. For example, these decisions may include what types of jobs women choose as well as decisions they make about how, when, and where they do their work. These decisions may have specific consequences for their career advancement or earnings. However, debate exists whether these decisions are freely made or influenced by discrimination in society or in the workplace.
Potential for Direct or Indirect Discrimination
Debate exists whether decisions that women make to manage work and family responsibilities are freely made or influenced by underlying discrimination. Some experts believe that women are free to make choices about work and family, and willingly accept the earnings consequences. Specifically, certain experts believe that some women place higher priority on home and family, and voluntarily trade off career advancement and earnings to focus on these responsibilities. Other experts believe that some women place similar priority on family and career. Alternatively, other women place higher priority on career and may delay or decide not to have children. However, other experts believe that underlying discrimination exists in the presumption that women have primary responsibility for home and family, and as a result, women are forced to make decisions to accommodate these responsibilities. One example of this is a woman who must work part time for childcare reasons, but would have preferred to work full time if she did not have this family responsibility. In addition, some experts also suggest that women face other societal and workplace discrimination that may result in lower earnings. However, according to other experts, although women may still face discrimination in the workplace, it is not a systematic problem and legal remedies are already in place. For example, Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibits employment discrimination based on gender.
According to some experts and literature, women face societal discrimination that may affect their career advancement and earnings. Some research suggests that the career aspirations of men and women may be influenced by societal norms about gender roles. For example, parents, peers, or institutions (such as schools or the media) may teach them that certain occupations?such as nursing or teaching, which tend to be relatively lower-paying?are identified with women while others are identified with men. As a result, men and women may view different fields or occupations as valuable or socially acceptable. According to some experts, societal discrimination may help explain why men and women tend to be concentrated in different occupations. For example, some research has found that women tend to be over-represented in clerical and service jobs, while men are disproportionately employed in blue-collar craft and laborer jobs. 7 Other research suggests that gender differences exist even among those who are college educated. For example, men tend to be concentrated in majors such as engineering and mathematics, while women are typically concentrated in majors such as social work and education. Research indicates that men and women who work in femaledominated occupations earn less than comparable workers in other occupations.
Additionally, some experts and literature suggest that women face discrimination in the workplace. This type of discrimination may affect what type of jobs women are hired into or whether they are promoted. In some cases, employers or clients may underestimate women?s abilities or male co-workers may resist working with women, particularly if women are in higher-level positions. Employers may also discriminate based on their presumptions about women as a group in terms of family responsibilities?rather than considering each woman?s individual situation. For example, employers may be less likely to hire or promote women because they assume that women may be less committed or may be more likely to quit for home and family reasons. To the extent that employers who offer higher-paying jobs discriminate against women in this way, women may not have the same earnings opportunities as men. Finally, other experts suggest that both men and women who are parents face discrimination in the workplace due to their family responsibilities in terms of hiring, promotions, and terminations on the job.
According to some literature, discrimination may occur if employers enact policies or practices that have a disproportionately negative impact on one group of workers, such as women with children. For example, if an employer has a policy that excludes part-time workers from promotions, this could have a significant effect on women because they are more likely to work part time. Other experts suggest that workplace practices reflecting ideal worker norms?such as requiring routine overtime for promotion?could be considered discrimination. This could impact women more (particularly mothers) and may result in a disproportionate number of men in high-level positions.
Originally posted by alcimedes
so the "counter" argument to this flat-out says that the real wage difference is somewhere between 9% and 13%, not 26%.
that's exactly the kind of crap that people complain about. they know that the real wage difference is only 9 to 13 percent, yet don't use that number in their pamphlets do they?
of course, OVER HALF of the wage difference is accounted for because women DON'T STAY AT THEIR JOBS and are LESS EDUCATED.
that doesn't even account for the difference in hours worked. (35 hours vs. 60 hours)
lame article.
The real wage gap IS 26%, but 10-15% of that can be accounted for by systematic differences in education, time off, etc. That doesn't mean it's not real.
What bothers me is the assumption that, because ~10% can't be explained, it MUST be discrimination. That's not the way it works folks. If it's discrimination, you've got to show it, not just assume that all unexplained factors are discrimination.
Originally posted by bunge
People who are taller get more money. That's been proven. So while the 74% figure might be wrong, the gap does exist. And that gap isn't caused by women making choices, but by men and women when hiring.
Wow, way to dismiss pages and pages of research with denial.
It isn't sexism, it is choices that lead to that gap. I've made the same choices as many women with regard to working as a teacher and trading more time off for less pay.
Are the evil men oppressing me too?
Nick
Originally posted by ShawnJ
Nice misogynistic attitude.
Nice name calling.
Nick
Originally posted by trumptman
Nice name calling.
Nick
Assuming women falsely complain about a wage gap for empowerment reasons is misogynistic, and yes, name calling on my part. (Or at least sexist. Whichever one works for you.)
Originally posted by ShawnJ
No, the argument is that the real wage difference (full-time; average) is 26%. The part that discrimination likely accounts for is between 9% and 13%.
EDIT: clarification.
Hello, the point is that government has a role in the 9-13% and the remaining differece is related to personal choices.
What role or right does the government have in dealing with personal choices?
Personal choices creating a wage gap isn't a even describing it correctly. It is simply making what you have chosen to make. When Shawn graduates from law school and is earning more than Nick, while working many more hours at a high rate of pay, that will reflect a difference in priorities and choices. I can't say I have a wage gap compared to you. We are paid different amounts for different job requirements. (including days and hours worked, education, etc.)
So I guess if you earn more than me in the future it is just a gap and I responded to my societal conditioning differently than you and thus you should equalize it.
Let me know when you will start mailing me those checks okay?
Nick
Originally posted by ShawnJ
Assuming women falsely complain about a wage gap for empowerment reasons is misogynistic, and yes, name calling on my part. (Or at least sexist. Whichever one works for you.)
Has any group in power not been corrupt? Women are between 55-60% of college students and graduates today. Men are 80% of dropouts, behavior referrals, special education referrals and graduate with lower grades and rates of achievement. What do we hear nationally? Women need special classes, and special programs because they still score lower in science and math.
No special programs for men.
You assign a word that is hateful merely for someone pointing out that those in power might not want to give it up. For the rest of the world, that is an easily understood fact, not proof of hatefulness.
Nick
Originally posted by BRussell
The real wage gap IS 26%, but 10-15% of that can be accounted for by systematic differences in education, time off, etc. That doesn't mean it's not real.
What bothers me is the assumption that, because ~10% can't be explained, it MUST be discrimination. That's not the way it works folks. If it's discrimination, you've got to show it, not just assume that all unexplained factors are discrimination.
Ding, ding, ding... give the person a prize!
Nick
Originally posted by trumptman
Wow, way to dismiss pages and pages of research with denial.
It isn't sexism, it is choices that lead to that gap. I've made the same choices as many women with regard to working as a teacher and trading more time off for less pay.
Are the evil men oppressing me too?
Nick
I said "...that gap isn't caused by women making choices, but by men and women when hiring." People hiring make decisions based off the dumbest things, and that sometimes screws women out of cash.
You can deny it, but you're wrong. That gap exists and some of it is covered by discrimination. Sorry.
Originally posted by alcimedes
so for this thread are we going to define "wage gap" as a difference in pay, regardless of education level and the number of years you stay at a job?
Personally I'm referring to the gap that takes into account education level and years of service.
Originally posted by bunge
Personally I'm referring to the gap that takes into account education level and years of service.
excellent. then we've gone from 26% to 11% (average between a possible 9 and 13%) hey, we just knocked the wage gap down by over 42%!!
now, do you want to take actual hours worked into account as well when we define wage gap, or are we going to say that working 35 hours is the same as working 60+ hours?
Upon further review I think I misunderstood your post. Were you being sarcastic (as in, you agree with BR, and you're simply saying the feminists will never admit to the conclusions in that summary), or were you saying something else?
Sorry if I mistook what you were saying. I only caught it after BR made a comment about being cynical, etc. Obviously I stand with BR's argument as well, just didn't think at first that you were.
Originally posted by bunge
I said "...that gap isn't caused by women making choices, but by men and women when hiring." People hiring make decisions based off the dumbest things, and that sometimes screws women out of cash.
You can deny it, but you're wrong. That gap exists and some of it is covered by discrimination. Sorry.
As BRussell pointed out, a gap can exist, and you ASSUME discrimination.
If you and I worked for the same employer for 3 years and I hated confrontation and you relished it, we might make different levels of money. You might walk in every 3-6 months and demand a raise. I, not wanting to cause a stir and personally feel more secure in my job, might just ask annually during a review or just accept what they give me.
If you made 10% more than me in three years, is that discrimination or you being more demanding?
It doesn't have to occur with the hiring, it can occur over the course of the job. It can occur at any time and it can occur for a multitude of reasons that are not related to discrimination.
When you apply it between two men, the answer isn't discrimination, why is it when one party is a woman?
Nick
Originally posted by alcimedes
excellent. then we've gone from 26% to 11% (average between a possible 9 and 13%) hey, we just knocked the wage gap down by over 42%!!
now, do you want to take actual hours worked into account as well when we define wage gap, or are we going to say that working 35 hours is the same as working 60+ hours?
We could include part-time workers and increase the wage-gap to 38%.
I agree with BR and the premise or "most important part" of the article. Present day America, for the most part, gives all groups equal opportunity. The exception, perhaps, is the failing of the inner city school systems who educate mostly black children. But that's another issue...
Women do in fact make less on average. But as stated earlier, there are a lot of reasons for that. In today's day and age, women doing the same job (at the same company) as a man make the same money. If they don't, there are lawsuits and rightly so. Comparing, as one poster said, "apples to oranges" is dangerous. As soon as we change the job (the company, geographic area, etc) the comparison goes to hell. No employer in this nation will get away with paying a woman less for the same work.
But why do women make less? It's true that some of it is choice. Women often leave work to raise familes and choose that success over professional success. When averaged out, it looks like women in general are getting a raw deal. In addition, it has only been recently (say, 20 years) that some fields (higher paying ones) have been really "open" to women. Some have not worked their way through the ladder yet, whereas many of the men have been working the steps of corporate America for 40 years or more. It takes time.
If anything, in my job and elsewhere I have seen women being hired at a higher rate than men for top positions. This is, of course, anecdotal. In my school district, the Superintendent, Assistant Superintendent, two elementary school principals and the middle school principal are all female. I know it's Education, but at one time my field was dominated by men, particularly at the secondary and post-secondary levels and administration. I see more women university presidents, administrators and certainly faculty.
Again, I think BR is right.
Originally posted by ShawnJ
We could include part-time workers and increase the wage-gap to 38%.
You could also look at why women prefer and are given the "choice" of part time work in overwhelming numbers as well.
My wife was given the choice for example of whether to work or stay home or even work part time if she so chooses.
Amazingly enough, no one came along and offered me any of those choices.
Choice = power, not discrimination.
Nick
Originally posted by BR
That isn't misogyny. He isn't hating women there. He is hating what SOME women do to manipulate statistics to garner UNDESERVING sympathy and making the situation seem worse than it is.
Bit late in the day for me to repost but yes you've nailed it.
Hey Shawn, go grab a dictionary and look up the word " Misandry " ( that's if you find a dictionary with that word still allowed to be printed.)
You'll then understand my position a little bit clearer.
Ps I went to University in the 70's and at the height of the feminist revolution. You've got no idea what radical means until you've been spat on just for being a male...passing in a corridor....
Totally f..ked...
And now most of these loverly women err "Wymin" are in positions of "power ". it's just that they've become femanazis in the process..scary indeed.