Time for you and the other victim feminists to stop beating a dead horse.
Nick
I can understand that fine. It's great news, and it indicates a lot of progress has been made. But, the article only notes that the percentage of female white-collar workers has increased. The article doesn't disprove the existence a wage gap between male and female white-collar workers. In fact, it mentions nothing about it.
ok, sorry, wasn't clear before. the day's been rushed.
from what i've read, the 26% gap is the largest possible gap they were able to find.
that 26% takes nothing into account.
if they calculate education/years worked, the wage gap drops to (average of) 11%
if they calculate hours worked (and hours worked only, not education etc) then the wage gap is 17% for half of women, but still only 26% for the other half. leaving you with an average of 21.5% when taking actual hours worked into account.
so what it amounts to is this. (if i read their stuff right)
26% wage gap if:
full time work is anything over 35 hours. actual hours worked don't count.
education is not factored in.
years at a job is not factored in.
actual jobs are not compared.
the following shift that 26% down.
calculating actual hours drops the wage shift by 9% for half of the workforce. (overall shift of 4.5% for the entire workforce)
calculating education and time worked at a job drops the 26% down to 11% (average). that's another 15 of the 26 percentage points.
adding just three variables together accounts for 19.5% of the 26% wage difference.
are we on the same page then, or was that off? it's the holiday season and i find it hard to really care that much.
ok, sorry, wasn't clear before. the day's been rushed.
from what i've read, the 26% gap is the largest possible gap they were able to find.
that 26% takes nothing into account.
if they calculate education/years worked, the wage gap drops to (average of) 11%
if they calculate hours worked (and hours worked only, not education etc) then the wage gap is 17% for half of women, but still only 26% for the other half. leaving you with an average of 21.5% when taking actual hours worked into account.
so what it amounts to is this. (if i read their stuff right)
26% wage gap if:
full time work is anything over 35 hours. actual hours worked don't count.
education is not factored in.
years at a job is not factored in.
actual jobs are not compared.
the following shift that 26% down.
calculating actual hours drops the wage shift by 9% for half of the workforce. (overall shift of 4.5% for the entire workforce)
calculating education and time worked at a job drops the 26% down to 11% (average). that's another 15 of the 26 percentage points.
adding just three variables together accounts for 19.5% of the 26% wage difference.
are we on the same page then, or was that off? it's the holiday season and i find it hard to really care that much.
Thanks for clearing that up. But I still respectfully disagree with most of it:
We agree that 26% is the average gender wage gap researchers found among full-time workers. Every study I've read (GAO, COEA, and IWPR [although we couldn't read that one]), and now yourself, corroborates that figure. What's perplexing about Diana Furchtgott-Roth's article is that she explicitly indicts the average wage gap as a "fiction," as if the number itself were wrong. But later she actually accepts the figure. She wrote, "this report again propounded the fiction that women are paid only 74 cents on a man's dollar in the United States as a whole." Then she writes, "women's average wages continued to rise relative to men's wages during the twentieth century, reaching 74 percent of men's in 1998." Whaaaaaat? That's a major contradiction.
The average wage gap is 26%. Even Diana Furchtgott-Roth admits it while contradicting herself. So we've defeated one of BR's arguments. He wrote, "I am strictly speaking about this ridiculous 74% figure. You believe this figure is credible?" Surprisingly, the author of his own article does. So here's where we disagree:
The three reports in question (GAO, COEA, and IWPR) all report that when all known factors are considered, an unexplained portion of 9-13 percentage points remains. (The COEA report puts the number at 12). Your calculations, while clear, put the unexplained portion at 6.5 percentage points. What's not clear is from what report you got those numbers. That's my question.
If we can agree on the numbers (and I see no reason we can't), then we still have plenty of room for disagreement on what the numbers mean. ...basically, on whether the unexplained and/or the explained portion mean discrimination. Pretty much the only parameters of that discussion would be that not all of it could possibly be discrimination and at least some of it must be. It's pretty wide open from there. What do you think?
Wrong Shawnyboy. The figure exists because of FAULTY LOGIC AND REASONING WHEN GETTING IT. That huge gap is still a myth. It still isn't a credible figure.
what all of this boils down to is that they're taking correlational numbers and trying to assign causation.
the 74¢ on the dollar camp wants to say
gender is the cause of this difference. (nothing else)
the 90¢ plus on the dollar camp is saying
education, hours worked, and years at a job are the cause for the 74¢ per dollar number, NOT gender.
gender at most accounts for a 5¢ - 7¢ difference in wages.
thing is, there is a wage gap. both sides agree to that, no conflict there.
the disagreement is about whether or not there is a gender gap, and if so how much it is.
a wage gap isn't the same as gender based wage gap.
Ohh. I'm going to make my point a bit didactically, so bear with me:
The difference in education between genders is the factor.
The difference in hours worked between genders is the factor.
The difference in experience between genders is the factor.
The wage gap between males and females is a gender wage gap. Differences in gender in a variety of factors account for the gap.
The rest just further explains that:
According to the three reports, a significant part (1/2 to about 3/4) of the gender wage gap is that men generally have more education, work more hours, and have more experience, etc. than women. Heidi Hartmann writes that "men still bring (on average) more (and different) education into the labor market and have accumulated more years of experience, all factors which affect productivity on the job and therefore, legitimately affect wages."
When comparing the average wages of men and women, gender (which seems to be used confusingly in place of "sex," but that's another thread) is the difference across the board. 100% of the wage gap can be attributed to a difference in gender. 13-17 percentage points of the 26% wage gap can be attributed to legitimate differences between genders such as those factors listed earlier and others. And the remaining gap by unexplained factors.
AFAIK, there's just no debate about that. What report argues that it's not a gender wage gap? Not even Diana Furchtgott-Roth argues that (without contradicting herself). The idea she argues against is that the gender wage gap is caused by discrimination. Instead, she argues that it's due to "women making choices about their educational and professional career." It's the next direction of this debate once we agree on the numbers.
Note: Edited a few times quickly after initial posting. It's late!
So how does raising female wages do anything to really address the situation? Seems like most of those factors you mentioned are a matter of choice. Women have just as many opportunities to gain experience, get an education, and work more hours. Just raising wages to close this gap is giving women a free advantage without really earning anything.
Gee, work hard and you earn more. How about promote that instead of always whining about handouts?
The difference in education between genders is the factor.
The difference in hours worked between genders is the factor.
The difference in experience between genders is the factor.
that's fine. but aren't the above listed qualities some of the conerstones that wages should be based on?
if you didn't take those factors into effect, what would be left?
part of the problem is that the folks working to cure the pay rate between men and women aren't willing to (at least in an upfront manner) acknowledge that the 74¢ figure is crap. if you promote with that, have "bake ins'" etc. with those numbers, you're being fundamentally dishonest.
as a stupidly simple example, say 100% of women were cashiers, and 100% of men were lawyers.
for this example, the women average 40 hours a week, the men 60 hours a week.
would you be upset about a "wage gap" here?
the groups fighting for equal wages wouldn't take job title into account here, wouldn't take education level, and wouldn't take hours worked. they would just say "these full time working women make a lot less then men, we should fix this"
thing is, there's not a problem there. the lawyers should be getting paid more, the cashiers should be making less.
what these groups haven't asked themselves is (referring to the above example)
How much would a man make as a cashier? or How much would a women make as a lawyer?
Do you have a college degree? If so, that might be why you've never had a problem. Look at what you've written.
Men & women with degrees are neck and neck. Fine.
Women without a degree are 90% less well off. Fine.
Men without a degree are what?
If that number is less than 90% then we have a problem.
Yes, I do have a degree.
Actually, yes, the difference between men with degrees and without is much smaller. (PLEASE don't make me go look it up. It's in an Economics textbook on my shelf in the chapter on Wages and Discrimination.)
The reason I agree with BR is because you cannot look at the wages and the "gaps" and determine that it is in any way a systematic discrimination.
A man without a degree can still get a job as a welder, machinist, toolmaker, carpenter, etc., all of which are reasonably well-paying jobs. In all honesty, a woman could get the same job--and some women do--but most women find the option unacceptable. It's not that women are lining up to be welders and no one will hire them. It's a preference--one born of nature or nuture is a whole other debate.
Now combine all these preferences and choices--jobs women don't want; women who don't want jobs while their kids are small, women who leave the workforce for a period of years to raise their children and thus "fall behind in experience"-- and you have what appears to be a gap.
And I also think two other factors come into play: I think women as a rule are less aggressive than men and ASK for less money. And in many cases the woman is a secondary wage earner and so is willling to supply labor at a lower price.
So, in summary, I think the market fairly compensates women based on their preferences, choices, and willingness to supply their labor.
The reason I agree with BR is because you cannot look at the wages and the "gaps" and determine that it is in any way a systematic discrimination.
Exactly. This is precisely what I tried to convey to Shawn with the example of him as a lawyer and myself as a teacher. There would be a "gap" in our wages but it isn't because of systemic discrimination. This is true if I made the same decisions while being female.
Quote:
A man without a degree can still get a job as a welder, machinist, toolmaker, carpenter, etc., all of which are reasonably well-paying jobs. In all honesty, a woman could get the same job--and some women do--but most women find the option unacceptable. It's not that women are lining up to be welders and no one will hire them. It's a preference--one born of nature or nuture is a whole other debate.
This is what others have called the glass cellar. Many women, though not all as you mentioned, have no desire for these jobs. They have a different set of priorities and being disposable and possibly being hurt, maimed, harmed, or possibly even killed due to the dangerous nature of the job doesn't happen to be high on their set of priorities.
The fact that women often have an option to consider jobs other than these is again, not proof of discrimination, but rather proof of societal protection.
Quote:
So, in summary, I think the market fairly compensates women based on their preferences, choices, and willingness to supply their labor.
So tell me, how is it best to convince others that women having different preferences, choices and a willingness to work does not constitute discrimination?
I've discussed this with Shawn here but with others at different times. The rat race, earn, spend, consume as much as you can, while working yourself to death is hardly the best or only answer to how we choose to live on this blue ball.
I just find it so strangely ironic that the people that advocate this ONE TRUE ANSWER claim they are empowering others. How is devoting one-third+ of my entire day, likely more than half of my waking hours to some other boss, or company empowerment?
I have consciously made the decision to keep my time my own since I was a teenager. The differences between my peers and I with regard to free time some 15 years later is profound. I have friends who haven't taken a vacation in years, and others who's families (the two adults combined) put in 90+ hours of work a week.
I work as a teacher. My wife doesn't work at all. We live as well as we can while maximizing the time we have for each other and our children.
Maybe when they should publish a quality of life survey and then we can see where the gaps are.
I have consciously made the decision to keep my time my own since I was a teenager. The differences between my peers and I with regard to free time some 15 years later is profound. I have friends who haven't taken a vacation in years, and others who's families (the two adults combined) put in 90+ hours of work a week.
I work as a teacher. My wife doesn't work at all. We live as well as we can while maximizing the time we have for each other and our children.
Maybe when they should publish a quality of life survey and then we can see where the gaps are.
Nick
Well said, but I don't think you can convince people who don't want to be convinced. It is easier to be a slave than to be a freeman and bear one's own responsibilities. You know, if you check scripture, there are more verses about not being a slave than about "owning" slaves. (Under biblical law, one could sell oneself into slavery, actually more akin to indentured servititude, but to kidnap and make someone a slave carried the death penalty, just to give some context to my statement.)
Now combine all these preferences and choices--jobs women don't want; women who don't want jobs while their kids are small, women who leave the workforce for a period of years to raise their children and thus "fall behind in experience"-- and you have what appears to be a gap.
All this is fine and dandy but when you study different job sectors you'll see an alarming trend. As men move into a field (nursing) the salaries go up. As men leave a field (veterinarian) salaries go down. Same job, different genders, different pay.
All this is fine and dandy but when you study different job sectors you'll see an alarming trend. As men move into a field (nursing) the salaries go up. As men leave a field (veterinarian) salaries go down. Same job, different genders, different pay.
It's a quantifiable gap.
First, I demand a source on this.
Second, if what previously held true about less experience, hours worked, and education are taken into account, these trends are not so alarming.
Yes, there may be a gap but that does not mean it was a result of discrimination.
Second, if what previously held true about less experience, hours worked, and education are taken into account, these trends are not so alarming.
Yes, there may be a gap but that does not mean it was a result of discrimination.
No. That's not the way to treat people! You ask for something. You don't demand it!
But beyond the rudeness, you're absolutely right. He should have provided a source, and, regardless, the trends he mentioned are not surprising given the factors men bring to the workplace on average.
(Note: I'll respond later to the previous posts. It's late, and as you can understand, Christmas Eve afterall.)
No. That's not the way to treat people! You ask for something. You don't demand it!
But beyond the rudeness, you're absolutely right. He should have provided a source, and, regardless, the trends he mentioned are not surprising given the factors men bring to the workplace on average.
(Note: I'll respond later to the previous posts. It's late, and as you can understand, Christmas Eve afterall.)
Holy crap you agree. So it is possible. Interesting.
Go listen to the radio and you might hear the same thing. Or try Google. Ask Alcimedes, he says it's your friend.
Hi, my name is bunge and I'm going to assert something without backing it up then call the person who calls me on it a dork and tell him to find his own damn sources.
Even your friend Lefty McLeft says that you are wrong here.
Quote:
But beyond the rudeness, you're absolutely right. He should have provided a source, and, regardless, the trends he mentioned are not surprising given the factors men bring to the workplace on average.
Hi, my name is bunge and I'm going to assert something without backing it up then call the person who calls me on it a dork and tell him to find his own damn sources.
No, you're a 'dork' for demanding anything when you've got the power to do something about it yourself.
Now that I've cited it, does it help any? I cite whenever possible, and when I can't, I don't. See?
Comments
Originally posted by trumptman
Not surprising....
Perhaps you can understand this....
Women 50.6 percent of white collar/management
Time for you and the other victim feminists to stop beating a dead horse.
Nick
I can understand that fine. It's great news, and it indicates a lot of progress has been made. But, the article only notes that the percentage of female white-collar workers has increased. The article doesn't disprove the existence a wage gap between male and female white-collar workers. In fact, it mentions nothing about it.
from what i've read, the 26% gap is the largest possible gap they were able to find.
that 26% takes nothing into account.
if they calculate education/years worked, the wage gap drops to (average of) 11%
if they calculate hours worked (and hours worked only, not education etc) then the wage gap is 17% for half of women, but still only 26% for the other half. leaving you with an average of 21.5% when taking actual hours worked into account.
so what it amounts to is this. (if i read their stuff right)
26% wage gap if:
full time work is anything over 35 hours. actual hours worked don't count.
education is not factored in.
years at a job is not factored in.
actual jobs are not compared.
the following shift that 26% down.
calculating actual hours drops the wage shift by 9% for half of the workforce. (overall shift of 4.5% for the entire workforce)
calculating education and time worked at a job drops the 26% down to 11% (average). that's another 15 of the 26 percentage points.
adding just three variables together accounts for 19.5% of the 26% wage difference.
are we on the same page then, or was that off? it's the holiday season and i find it hard to really care that much.
Originally posted by alcimedes
ok, sorry, wasn't clear before. the day's been rushed.
from what i've read, the 26% gap is the largest possible gap they were able to find.
that 26% takes nothing into account.
if they calculate education/years worked, the wage gap drops to (average of) 11%
if they calculate hours worked (and hours worked only, not education etc) then the wage gap is 17% for half of women, but still only 26% for the other half. leaving you with an average of 21.5% when taking actual hours worked into account.
so what it amounts to is this. (if i read their stuff right)
26% wage gap if:
full time work is anything over 35 hours. actual hours worked don't count.
education is not factored in.
years at a job is not factored in.
actual jobs are not compared.
the following shift that 26% down.
calculating actual hours drops the wage shift by 9% for half of the workforce. (overall shift of 4.5% for the entire workforce)
calculating education and time worked at a job drops the 26% down to 11% (average). that's another 15 of the 26 percentage points.
adding just three variables together accounts for 19.5% of the 26% wage difference.
are we on the same page then, or was that off? it's the holiday season and i find it hard to really care that much.
Thanks for clearing that up. But I still respectfully disagree with most of it:
We agree that 26% is the average gender wage gap researchers found among full-time workers. Every study I've read (GAO, COEA, and IWPR [although we couldn't read that one]), and now yourself, corroborates that figure. What's perplexing about Diana Furchtgott-Roth's article is that she explicitly indicts the average wage gap as a "fiction," as if the number itself were wrong. But later she actually accepts the figure. She wrote, "this report again propounded the fiction that women are paid only 74 cents on a man's dollar in the United States as a whole." Then she writes, "women's average wages continued to rise relative to men's wages during the twentieth century, reaching 74 percent of men's in 1998." Whaaaaaat? That's a major contradiction.
The average wage gap is 26%. Even Diana Furchtgott-Roth admits it while contradicting herself. So we've defeated one of BR's arguments. He wrote, "I am strictly speaking about this ridiculous 74% figure. You believe this figure is credible?" Surprisingly, the author of his own article does. So here's where we disagree:
The three reports in question (GAO, COEA, and IWPR) all report that when all known factors are considered, an unexplained portion of 9-13 percentage points remains. (The COEA report puts the number at 12). Your calculations, while clear, put the unexplained portion at 6.5 percentage points. What's not clear is from what report you got those numbers. That's my question.
If we can agree on the numbers (and I see no reason we can't), then we still have plenty of room for disagreement on what the numbers mean. ...basically, on whether the unexplained and/or the explained portion mean discrimination. Pretty much the only parameters of that discussion would be that not all of it could possibly be discrimination and at least some of it must be. It's pretty wide open from there. What do you think?
the 74¢ on the dollar camp wants to say
gender is the cause of this difference. (nothing else)
the 90¢ plus on the dollar camp is saying
education, hours worked, and years at a job are the cause for the 74¢ per dollar number, NOT gender.
gender at most accounts for a 5¢ - 7¢ difference in wages.
thing is, there is a wage gap. both sides agree to that, no conflict there.
the disagreement is about whether or not there is a gender gap, and if so how much it is.
a wage gap isn't the same as gender based wage gap.
Originally posted by alcimedes
what all of this boils down to is that they're taking correlational numbers and trying to assign causation.
the 74¢ on the dollar camp wants to say
gender is the cause of this difference. (nothing else)
the 90¢ plus on the dollar camp is saying
education, hours worked, and years at a job are the cause for the 74¢ per dollar number, NOT gender.
gender at most accounts for a 5¢ - 7¢ difference in wages.
thing is, there is a wage gap. both sides agree to that, no conflict there.
the disagreement is about whether or not there is a gender gap, and if so how much it is.
a wage gap isn't the same as gender based wage gap.
Ohh. I'm going to make my point a bit didactically, so bear with me:
The difference in education between genders is the factor.
The difference in hours worked between genders is the factor.
The difference in experience between genders is the factor.
The wage gap between males and females is a gender wage gap. Differences in gender in a variety of factors account for the gap.
The rest just further explains that:
According to the three reports, a significant part (1/2 to about 3/4) of the gender wage gap is that men generally have more education, work more hours, and have more experience, etc. than women. Heidi Hartmann writes that "men still bring (on average) more (and different) education into the labor market and have accumulated more years of experience, all factors which affect productivity on the job and therefore, legitimately affect wages."
When comparing the average wages of men and women, gender (which seems to be used confusingly in place of "sex," but that's another thread) is the difference across the board. 100% of the wage gap can be attributed to a difference in gender. 13-17 percentage points of the 26% wage gap can be attributed to legitimate differences between genders such as those factors listed earlier and others. And the remaining gap by unexplained factors.
AFAIK, there's just no debate about that. What report argues that it's not a gender wage gap? Not even Diana Furchtgott-Roth argues that (without contradicting herself). The idea she argues against is that the gender wage gap is caused by discrimination. Instead, she argues that it's due to "women making choices about their educational and professional career." It's the next direction of this debate once we agree on the numbers.
Note: Edited a few times quickly after initial posting. It's late!
Gee, work hard and you earn more. How about promote that instead of always whining about handouts?
The difference in education between genders is the factor.
The difference in hours worked between genders is the factor.
The difference in experience between genders is the factor.
that's fine. but aren't the above listed qualities some of the conerstones that wages should be based on?
if you didn't take those factors into effect, what would be left?
part of the problem is that the folks working to cure the pay rate between men and women aren't willing to (at least in an upfront manner) acknowledge that the 74¢ figure is crap. if you promote with that, have "bake ins'" etc. with those numbers, you're being fundamentally dishonest.
as a stupidly simple example, say 100% of women were cashiers, and 100% of men were lawyers.
for this example, the women average 40 hours a week, the men 60 hours a week.
would you be upset about a "wage gap" here?
the groups fighting for equal wages wouldn't take job title into account here, wouldn't take education level, and wouldn't take hours worked. they would just say "these full time working women make a lot less then men, we should fix this"
thing is, there's not a problem there. the lawyers should be getting paid more, the cashiers should be making less.
what these groups haven't asked themselves is (referring to the above example)
How much would a man make as a cashier? or How much would a women make as a lawyer?
Originally posted by bunge
Do you have a college degree? If so, that might be why you've never had a problem. Look at what you've written.
Men & women with degrees are neck and neck. Fine.
Women without a degree are 90% less well off. Fine.
Men without a degree are what?
If that number is less than 90% then we have a problem.
Yes, I do have a degree.
Actually, yes, the difference between men with degrees and without is much smaller. (PLEASE don't make me go look it up. It's in an Economics textbook on my shelf in the chapter on Wages and Discrimination.)
The reason I agree with BR is because you cannot look at the wages and the "gaps" and determine that it is in any way a systematic discrimination.
A man without a degree can still get a job as a welder, machinist, toolmaker, carpenter, etc., all of which are reasonably well-paying jobs. In all honesty, a woman could get the same job--and some women do--but most women find the option unacceptable. It's not that women are lining up to be welders and no one will hire them. It's a preference--one born of nature or nuture is a whole other debate.
Now combine all these preferences and choices--jobs women don't want; women who don't want jobs while their kids are small, women who leave the workforce for a period of years to raise their children and thus "fall behind in experience"-- and you have what appears to be a gap.
And I also think two other factors come into play: I think women as a rule are less aggressive than men and ASK for less money. And in many cases the woman is a secondary wage earner and so is willling to supply labor at a lower price.
So, in summary, I think the market fairly compensates women based on their preferences, choices, and willingness to supply their labor.
Originally posted by Fangorn
The reason I agree with BR is because you cannot look at the wages and the "gaps" and determine that it is in any way a systematic discrimination.
Exactly. This is precisely what I tried to convey to Shawn with the example of him as a lawyer and myself as a teacher. There would be a "gap" in our wages but it isn't because of systemic discrimination. This is true if I made the same decisions while being female.
A man without a degree can still get a job as a welder, machinist, toolmaker, carpenter, etc., all of which are reasonably well-paying jobs. In all honesty, a woman could get the same job--and some women do--but most women find the option unacceptable. It's not that women are lining up to be welders and no one will hire them. It's a preference--one born of nature or nuture is a whole other debate.
This is what others have called the glass cellar. Many women, though not all as you mentioned, have no desire for these jobs. They have a different set of priorities and being disposable and possibly being hurt, maimed, harmed, or possibly even killed due to the dangerous nature of the job doesn't happen to be high on their set of priorities.
The fact that women often have an option to consider jobs other than these is again, not proof of discrimination, but rather proof of societal protection.
So, in summary, I think the market fairly compensates women based on their preferences, choices, and willingness to supply their labor.
So tell me, how is it best to convince others that women having different preferences, choices and a willingness to work does not constitute discrimination?
I've discussed this with Shawn here but with others at different times. The rat race, earn, spend, consume as much as you can, while working yourself to death is hardly the best or only answer to how we choose to live on this blue ball.
I just find it so strangely ironic that the people that advocate this ONE TRUE ANSWER claim they are empowering others. How is devoting one-third+ of my entire day, likely more than half of my waking hours to some other boss, or company empowerment?
I have consciously made the decision to keep my time my own since I was a teenager. The differences between my peers and I with regard to free time some 15 years later is profound. I have friends who haven't taken a vacation in years, and others who's families (the two adults combined) put in 90+ hours of work a week.
I work as a teacher. My wife doesn't work at all. We live as well as we can while maximizing the time we have for each other and our children.
Maybe when they should publish a quality of life survey and then we can see where the gaps are.
Nick
Originally posted by trumptman
....
I have consciously made the decision to keep my time my own since I was a teenager. The differences between my peers and I with regard to free time some 15 years later is profound. I have friends who haven't taken a vacation in years, and others who's families (the two adults combined) put in 90+ hours of work a week.
I work as a teacher. My wife doesn't work at all. We live as well as we can while maximizing the time we have for each other and our children.
Maybe when they should publish a quality of life survey and then we can see where the gaps are.
Nick
Well said, but I don't think you can convince people who don't want to be convinced. It is easier to be a slave than to be a freeman and bear one's own responsibilities. You know, if you check scripture, there are more verses about not being a slave than about "owning" slaves. (Under biblical law, one could sell oneself into slavery, actually more akin to indentured servititude, but to kidnap and make someone a slave carried the death penalty, just to give some context to my statement.)
Merry Christmas!!
Originally posted by Fangorn
Now combine all these preferences and choices--jobs women don't want; women who don't want jobs while their kids are small, women who leave the workforce for a period of years to raise their children and thus "fall behind in experience"-- and you have what appears to be a gap.
All this is fine and dandy but when you study different job sectors you'll see an alarming trend. As men move into a field (nursing) the salaries go up. As men leave a field (veterinarian) salaries go down. Same job, different genders, different pay.
It's a quantifiable gap.
Originally posted by bunge
All this is fine and dandy but when you study different job sectors you'll see an alarming trend. As men move into a field (nursing) the salaries go up. As men leave a field (veterinarian) salaries go down. Same job, different genders, different pay.
It's a quantifiable gap.
First, I demand a source on this.
Second, if what previously held true about less experience, hours worked, and education are taken into account, these trends are not so alarming.
Yes, there may be a gap but that does not mean it was a result of discrimination.
Originally posted by BR
First, I demand a source on this.
Second, if what previously held true about less experience, hours worked, and education are taken into account, these trends are not so alarming.
Yes, there may be a gap but that does not mean it was a result of discrimination.
No. That's not the way to treat people! You ask for something. You don't demand it!
But beyond the rudeness, you're absolutely right. He should have provided a source, and, regardless, the trends he mentioned are not surprising given the factors men bring to the workplace on average.
(Note: I'll respond later to the previous posts. It's late, and as you can understand, Christmas Eve afterall.)
Originally posted by ShawnJ
No. That's not the way to treat people! You ask for something. You don't demand it!
But beyond the rudeness, you're absolutely right. He should have provided a source, and, regardless, the trends he mentioned are not surprising given the factors men bring to the workplace on average.
(Note: I'll respond later to the previous posts. It's late, and as you can understand, Christmas Eve afterall.)
Holy crap you agree. So it is possible. Interesting.
Originally posted by BR
First, I demand a source on this.
You're a dork.
Go listen to the radio and you might hear the same thing. Or try Google. Ask Alcimedes, he says it's your friend.
well, that and the Genius Bar is full of questions that you can answer if you'd typed the title of your thread into google.
usually the first link.
Originally posted by bunge
You're a dork.
Go listen to the radio and you might hear the same thing. Or try Google. Ask Alcimedes, he says it's your friend.
Hi, my name is bunge and I'm going to assert something without backing it up then call the person who calls me on it a dork and tell him to find his own damn sources.
Even your friend Lefty McLeft says that you are wrong here.
But beyond the rudeness, you're absolutely right. He should have provided a source, and, regardless, the trends he mentioned are not surprising given the factors men bring to the workplace on average.
Originally posted by BR
Hi, my name is bunge and I'm going to assert something without backing it up then call the person who calls me on it a dork and tell him to find his own damn sources.
No, you're a 'dork' for demanding anything when you've got the power to do something about it yourself.
Now that I've cited it, does it help any? I cite whenever possible, and when I can't, I don't. See?
If you can't use your brains, use google.
Originally posted by bunge
No, you're a 'dork' for demanding anything when you've got the power to do something about it yourself.
Now that I've cited it, does it help any? I cite whenever possible, and when I can't, I don't. See?
If you can't use your brains, use google.
what did you cite?