Shining Shoes Best Way Wall Street Women Outearn Men
Scott Walker Quietly Repeals Wisconsin Equal Pay Law
Tripp Crosby - @TrippCrosby1 - Lilly Ledbetter in New Hampshire. #Women4Obama
Offshore Technology Conference 2012 (pdf)
Deep discussion intrigues OTC pros
Romney campaign aide claims auto bailout was Romney's idea
Mitt Romney: Let Detroit Go Bankrupt
You're in Easy Mode. If you prefer, you can use XHTML Mode instead. |
Video: Day 2 reveals shocking scale of storm's destruction
Video: 'May 20' takes new meaning for Oklahoma
Video: Safe rooms prove effective defense against tornadoes
Video: Busy time for news beyond tornado tragedy
Video: Tea party seizes on IRS scandal as investigations, ineptitude perpetuate outrage
Video: Estimates give Moore sad distinction
Video: More from Moore
Leave a Comment:
The numbers don't lie. Anyone who can grasp the facts of the matter understands that women make 77% of what men make. That is something that should be addressed and fixed!
However, I think focusing on the pay discrepancy between men and women is the wrong approach. The GOP way of solving such an issue would be to pay a CEO who's a woman more money, and say that on average everything is better, when nothing really has been solved.
I think the better way of solving this problem generally, is for progressives to focus on wealth inequality generally throughout the nation. Doing that, in and of itself, may not solve pay discrepancy between men and women, but I think that focusing on that battle instead would create more fruitful progress for society as a whole, and may solve the pay discrepancy problem in the natural course of dealing with inequality generally.
Ultimately, I think that pay discrepancy between the sexes is just another symptom of wealth inequality generally, and I think focusing on the disease instead of the symptoms is the better course of action.
Least we forget: How inequality harms societies.
http://www.ted.com/talks/richard_wilkinson.html
While there is some discrimination here, I think in fairness its important to also at least acknowledge there are legitimate reasons for average wage differences. Men tend to be in the workforce longer (Women will often take years away from the workplace to raise children) Giving men greater senority. Men on average also have longer work weeks. Women on average take 50% more sick time then men, which influences considerations for promotion in the workplace.
I'm not sure how much of this gender earning gap is due to the functional difference in the sexes, and how much is improper discrimination, But for Democrats to say its all discrimination, or Republicans to say it is not discrimination at all boith seem equally dishonest positions,
Now, I only watched the video once but I do believe that it was stated every bit of information was factored into the equation at the end of the day - even the points you mentioned. I think we may both want to watch it again and let reality sink in.
There are not legitimate reasons for a 26.4% gender wage gap. Women face discrimination in hiring, in promotions, as well as the "glass ceiling" and the "sticky floor." They suffer huge financial loss when they have a child and take time off for caregiving because they are not working and not putting in to their social security and retirement. This puts women more at risk for poverty and homelessness in old age. Then the added caregiving and housekeeping expectations that are generally depicted as "not work" and offer no compensation, certainly take up a substantial amount of time and energy to do, regardless of the fact that everyone denies that it is unfair gender assigned free labor.
Then do not take off to have kids. There is legitimate reasons for a pay gap if there is an experience difference, education difference, or the other may just be better at the job. You see I have never once said man or female here? Having kids is a personal choice all people make. They can make the choice to have kids or not have kids. A woman or a man for that matter can not expect to take a significant amount of time off work and expect to make top wages. Otherwise what is the purposes of "earning" your wages? Essentially, you are arguing we give people something for nothing.
Adam, that's why the studies that Hartmann referred to account for time away from work-- typically they compare people with the same number of years of experience. And, if you were listening to Hartmann, she pointed out that when you account for legitimate explanations to explain the 72 cents that women earn for a man's dollar, then you get all the way up to about 80 cents on the dollar... but that there is no legitimate explanation for the remaining 20% differential.
I remember reading Hartmann almost 25 years ago when I was in college-- sounds like she's been at this for long enough that at least I trust her expertise.
20 years of solid straight experience is worth more then experience while adding up to 20 years is not the same. Industries change over time in ways that sometimes can only be learned on the job. If you take years off for any reason you can not expect top pay even if you add up years of experience of broken service.
How is it that within professions and specialties within professions women routinely earn less than men? Consider that government civil service jobs have greatly reduced or even eliminated the disparity. The answer surely isn't a difference in functionality.
So what is the counter argument here? That it's OK for women to be expected to take time off to raise kids and therefore be discriminated against by stupid social expectations? That it's OK for businesses to discredit time raising kids? That it should be OK for women to be expected to take sick time off to care for kids or their husbands when they are sick or there are appointments to be made like doctor's appointments? Even if your argument is that you feel the numbers are disingenuous because they are an average across all sectors- what is your counter argument here? That the income inequality gap is OK because it conforms to social norms? This is the most insane argument.
Mouzer, I think I have stated my counter argument well. You get paid what you can substantiate to an employer what your skills demand. Choosing to take time off to raise kids, re-enter the job field in some unknown time in the future, and expect to get paid the same as everyone else as lunacy. If maybe somehow you prove to an employer that you are worth the extra pay after your time off because you did something to earn it while you were away is different. If you spent some of your time going back to school (as my wife has had to do to keep her teaching cert), or done something else that shows you kept up with the industry you are in, then by all means argue with your employer that you are worth more. No one can do that for you. I am sure there is some discrimination between women and men in the workforce. I think it is much smaller then what this article above is trying to take from a very narrow source at best. I looked up all four websites from activist101 reference's and three of them state my case in part. It is not discrimination for an employer to give less wages for a job if you have been out of it for awhile. I am hoping that we all are talking about significant time off. If someone just takes the short baby leave time after birth and goes back to work that is different. If you are only off for a few weeks and the employer low balls you then you may have a case. But if you take significant time off from a field for any reason you can not expect to be paid top pay. If in the case of this blog we seem to be using the topic of women taking time off for kids. Businesses are not discrediting time raising kids. You misinterpret. First off what does your choice of taking time off have anything to do with the business? Did the business force you to have kids as in the case of this topic? Whoever in the family takes time off to take whoever to the Doctor or anything else, has nothing to do with your employer. You and your spouse make that decision. Businesses are not in the business of making your life easier. We as employee's provide a service to a business that is valuable enough that employer's want to pay us to do that service. Nothing more. If your skills demand more then go demand more from your employer. Then again, if you are a high school drop out (male or female) you probably do not have much to bargain for. We all earn what we can demand with the skills we have. One of those ways we show marketable skills is long lasting employment. Again, look inward for solutions not outward. Need I say it again, having kids is a personal choice with your partner. If anything, if you have marketable skills an employer will be sad to see you go. If on the one hand you have no marketable skills, no training, no education, or anything to bring to the table besides being human you are asking for something you did no earn. Tell you what, come join the military. The military is a socialists dream. We all make the same pay regardless of skills. We all get the same amount of vacation. We all get the same promotions at roughly the same time, the same healthcare, same education benefits, same clothes, and if you so choose to marry the same houses. Granted if that 20 something medic feels I should not see the PA then I can not go see him. If I think I need a second opinion I can not get one. If I need specialty care but the only appt is two months down the road there is nothing I can do about it. At Ft Drum if you live in base housing and I quote "in order to spread the wealth" your kids may ride a bus for up to two hours one way to get to school. The feds pay school districts some money for military kids in the district because we generally do not own homes. The brilliant politicians decided that they needed to bus kids to other districts to spread that money around regardless of the strain on the kids and families. The brand new houses built at Ft Drum over the last few years have no insulation in them. I have a friend that her pipes constantly freeze all winter long in Army housing. We all get promoted at the same time frame regardless of your performance. For the most part anyway. A few get promoted faster but they limit it. My point is we do not need Government to solve our problems. The Government can not run your life better then you. So then I turn the question back to you. What do you want? I mean either you have the skills to demand higher pay or you do not. The Government can not fix your problems better then you, or I, or we.
26.4% is too large of a gap to discount. That's the difference in pay between a medical surgeon and a financial adviser. Similarly, if you honestly believe that this pay gap is not based on bias, then try to account for the additional discrimination between the pay gaps between white employees and minorities. Women are paid less, minority women are payed even less. As for the education difference, currently colleges are graduating more female students than male students, by a ratio of around 57 to 43.
The world has changed though. You don't need white sheets and funny hats to hide your ideals, when careful rhetoric and tricky logic is enough to convince people you're the good guys.
No red. Your argument here is that the pay discrimination is a good thing. That is my point. You somehow think that you are justified. You are saying in essence that it's OK for women to be paid 77 cents for every 1 dollar that a man makes...because it conforms to social norms. You are, in essence, stating that because women are expected to carry more social burdens it's therefore logical for businesses to pay them less. How exactly do you think this makes your argument come across? You are attempting to argue that it's about freedom and logic when in reality you're just arguing that you agree w/ women being discriminated against. You do not have the high ground here and I don't think you realize that.
No. This was your argument about why it's OK for women to be paid unequally. This was your argument as to what explains the gender difference. The blog did not argue this- you argued this. You made the claim that it's OK for there to be a difference in pay between the genders because women are more likely to take time off to care for kids than men. This was your argument. You are- in essence- stating that it's justifiable for women to be paid less because women have children.
You clearly are not paying attention to the discussion at hand red. You have completely strawmanned the argument and apparently are now accusing me of being a socialist. Why am I socialist? Why because I don't agree w/ you! Therefore I must be a liberal. It can't be that you're being completely unreasonable and hyperbolic. Nope- you know everything and can never be wrong. Jesus christ do people ever listen to the stupid bull@!$%# they say? Do you even realize how arrogant and condescending you're being right now?
I am stating that you are advocating that society pay women differently than men and that this is OK and that nothing should be done to correct this. You are stating that if women find out they are being paid less than their male counterparts even when all other factors are addressed that those women should not have a recourse to sue their employer. Do you understand what we are talking about here? This is not about your army career or about whether or not you like the government. this is not about whether or not you feel insecure as a man about women being paid equally. This is about the gnawing gap between what women are paid and what men are paid even when adjusted for time off, experience, education, and hours worked. There should be no reason for a woman to be paid less than a man. Even by your own argument (in one of the posts below) you openly stated that as much as 90% of the pay gap is due to discrimination. So you're sitting here trying to downplay the issue as a personal responsibility issue while simultaneously obfuscating fact and excusing sexism.
So again I'll ask you- how exactly did you think you stood to benefit by making this argument? How exactly do you think society stands to benefit by making this argument?
I am not accusing you of being a socialist. I was using an example of what happens when the Government is looked at for solutions instead of people looking towards themselves for solutions. Using your quotes from the quotes I pulled it says that 40 percent of the pay gap may or may not be attributed to discriminatory actions. That is of course if you went and read the article instead of trusting me to interpret it for you. I copied both sides out of three articles in an attempt to stay objective. As I have said before, no one's experts, which you would have read for yourself if you had fact checked for yourself, can agree on why the pay gap exists. The paragraph prior also stated that 40 percent of the pay gap can only be attributed to discrimination. That is 9.2 percent of 23 percent. Then the very next paragraph states 90 percent of the pay gap can be attributed to discrimination. Are you starting to see how ignorant this supposed factual info is? I wholeheartedly am sure wage discrimination exists. I soundly believe that it is not as bad as people are trying to interpret one number of 77 cents on the dollar. It means nothing and solves nothing. It is only brought up to garner an emotional response to help someone else's agenda. My posts are starting to disappear. I guess I hit a nerve with someone. I enjoyed talking with everyone. I appreciate the refs from Activist101. Fact check always, look at all sides, and I hope to get on here again soon.
Yes red you were accusing me of being a socialist or advocating for socialism
This is the accusation you made. You are stating blatantly here that you believe that anyone who advocates for something like the Lilly Ledbetter Act is a socialist. This is completely hyperbolic and nonsensical to argue, but you make the assertion completely on the basis that I am disagreeing w/ you. I haven't even proposed- for the record- WHAT it is that I feel can be done to correct the issue. All I have done at this point is provided corrections to the statements you have asserted were true that either in fact were not true or were misrepresentations. I have as of yet not made a counter argument. But because I am not nodding my head in 100% agreement you've already felt inclined to dictate to me what I am thinking and what I am proposing. And this is the whole point I'm getting at: you are not being honest in this discussion. You pretend to be, but you are not.
And then you immediately follow w/ this. This, again, shows just how disingenuous and manipulative you are being in the conversation. I never stated nor implied nor gave the impression that I hadn't read up on this information myself. You automatically assume that I have not because I reject your assertions and if I am rejecting your assertions then you believe this must be because I am uniformed. You have already arbitrarily decided that you are correct and anyone who disagrees w/ you is automatically wrong. Siiiighs. This was my point.
You initiated this conversation by claiming that the gender wage gap does not exist. When that was thoroughly debunked you then admitted that the gender wage gap exists (but did not apologize for lying or misrepresenting your initial claim) and then are now attempting to assert that it's due to factors that no one can agree upon. Because there isn't universal agreement you are therefore asserting that it's not a big issue. And if it's not a big issue then the individual can deal w/ it on his or her own. Even though you have no evidence to support this or reason to believe it to be true. You just assert that it is so because you say it is so. And yet you are arguing that everyone else is not listening, that everyone else is uninformed, and that everyone else is being disingenuous. Your argument here is entirely hypocritical
No. You cannot state that because there is ambiguity in existence this therefore means that it is not real. Science does not claim to be definitive; the fact that these studies show there is such a huge wage gap means that you are openly admitting that you are wrong.
Hi Rachel:
I wholeheartedly agree to your comments on gender equality but regarding the man/woman differential of pay one factor may be how long a person works for a given business. Since salaries go up with time, if a man works 20 years without a break but a woman takes a pregnancy or some other break there will obviously be a pay differential.
Another comment regarding your, and other msnbc, programs is the policy of putting short clips of your program into a commercial. This is obviously a money making gimmick but it is annoying.
Another thing that is annoying is your unnecessary finagling with pencil and paper.
However, you show is otherwise excellent!
Ron Fischer
Why should women be punished for being mothers? Certainly raising children is hard work which is completely uncompensated work. So women are not "taking a break." So if the man stays home to take care of the kids the woman will be making more money than him upon his return? Maybe there should be more fairly divided childcare and division of housework instead of expecting women to provide free labor to sustain everyone else's economic gain.
Women should not be punished for being mothers. But if a woman takes years off of a job to raise kids she should not expect to make as much as any person who has worked all that time. "fairly divided childcare and division of housework" is not a business problem but a personal issue. If anyone quits or takes time off for anything for a substantial amount of time for any reason do not make as much as they would have.
If it is a "personal" issue, why is it only women's "personal" issue? Why should we be further penalized for raising children? If "business" wasn't male dominated, it would recognize the needs of the human beings that work to support that business and provide "family friendly" work-place practices. Women shouldn't have to be "sent home" from work to take care of children. Businesses should provide childcare or start providing a wage for the unpaid work that women do that people have become accustomed to "expect" we have the time, or can afford to do for free while compromising our economic progress. Women already face discrimination regarding hiring, advancement, raises and pay. Further discrimination based on race, marital status, age, parental status. We currently make 77.4 cents for every dollar earned by men. Share the burden of childcare equally, then maybe we'll see some provisions for childcare suddenly be enacted. It's unpaid labor that unfairly disadvantages women.
The do not do it unpaid. Tell your husband to pay you. Or else do not have kids. Why should Business or Government pay you for having kids? The answer is they should not be compelled to do so. If you can find a job with the benefits that covers child care because your skills demand it then by all means make it happen. Otherwise you have kids because "you" want them. You did not ask business or government for permission to have kids or as them for there opinion on you having kids. Having kids is a personal decision in life that should be with a partner. If you can not afford kids then why do you think you should have them? My wife and I waited several years into our marriage because we could not afford kids starting out. My wife has done the greatest job in the world taking care of the kids for the last 8 years. I have an 8 and 6 year old. My wife has a teaching degree in which case she could have made much more then I. I am in the military and did not bring much home for a long time. We moved so much that it was getting hard for her to change her cert for every state so she chose to stay at home when we felt we could afford to have kids. That has been a great blessing. Now that the kids are older and in school she is looking to getting back into the school. Guess I can not wait for to start working again. I can no longer support my family like I would like to on my pay alone. In my mind my wife saved my family by staying home with the kids. We do not look for accolades from the outside. We take pleasure in knowing that what we did was right for us and our kids. All of you have some control of your life. If you do not like it for some reason, work to change it. Do not look outward for solutions to your problems but inward. I have a buddy of mine that is in the Navy Nurse Corp. That is a female dominated career field. He gets the same discriminatory behavior from his Female bosses that you all are blaming on males. He has been passed over for the best jobs and placement because he is a male. You know those things that help you make more money and progress in your chosen career field. He has chosen, instead of blaming the system for his problems, to work hard no matter the situation and get what he gets. He deployed with a MEU a little while ago and did so well that he was invited to speak at a conference on the west coast on medical issues in the battlefield. Essentially he decided that he was not going to let stupid people get him down. If you do not like your situation then dig deep and figure out how "you" can work to change. Do not blame others for the choices you do or not make.
This gets to the crux of the argument. Red is simply arguing that women who are asking to be paid equally are blaming men for the fact that they are being paid unequally. Therefore the impulsive need to defend the male gender is based on the insane belief that the male gender is being attacked. This is not nor was it ever the issue. The issue is that we should be working to correct pay inequality in women. For the record pay inequality laws apply to both genders. Guess what? The Lilly Ledbetter law will give your Navy Nurse buddy protections as well. This is not an either/or thing. No one is blaming men for the fact that women are paid less. People are pointing to a systemic problem that is in existence and are attempting to correct that problem in whatever ways we can. Remember that when someone else gains freedom this does not equate to you losing freedom.
I also want to point out here red that you completely contradicted your own argument. You state that there are legitimate reasons why women are discriminated against and then you immediately state that your buddy is being discriminated against for illegitimate reasons. Now which one is it? Does gender discrimination in fact exist and therefore we have an obligation to correct for the problem however we can OR is this a non-existent issue that the left is making into a hyperbolic problem? Did you even think this through before you started making your counter argument? You've essentially just concluded that women are paid in discriminatory fashion, but that it's OK for this to happen and women should just shut up and stop whining. Because when they do so then they are blaming men, apparently.
Le sighs
Great point. I am not trying to vilify any one side here. All I am trying to say is that to many people are putting to much into numbers that mean little if people do not ask "why" and take an impartial look at data. We all must let go of what we think is the truth and hunt for it whether we agree with it or not. People need to take accountability for there actions. It is no other person's problem but you and your partner if you take time off of work for any reason. It is not the Governments job or your employer's job to be compelled to bail anyone out. If your employer chooses to than all the more power to them.
My point was in bringing up my buddy in the Navy is that this problem is not entirely a female issue. That both sexes do some discriminatory acts to each other. But where as some just want to whine and complain about it my buddy has not. He makes the best of it and still succeeds. He is not asking for a hand out or for the Government to fix his problems. Make your self more marketable and you will make more money. I also have a problem with Rachel Maddow and others on this blog doing the knee jerk reaction on data that is hallow by itself. If you all you state that there is a pay gap between the sexes it will say nothing but inflate an emotional response that fixes nothing. What is important is finding what makes that pay gap exist at all. From what I can tell no one can agree on what that might be. There is a lot of emotional responses that tend to be hallow and narrow minded. Since, no one (meaning experts) can agree on how to fix the problem then I say take it upon yourself to be more marketable. Do not wait on some idiot to tell you what you need. Fix it yourself and get the skills that you need to earn what you think you need to earn.
No one argued that it was. As I stated you are attempting to excuse female sexism here by now stating that "well it happens to men too." So, in otherwords, sexism is OK in your book.
But you are making this argument when absolutely no one proposed it. People are discussing two elements here: a. the Lilly Ledbetter Act and b. what we can do to address this socially. The LLA is NOT a government bailout. Do you understand this? It allows women (and men too) to sue if they find out their pay is being docked solely on the basis of their gender.
If a business will not hire a woman to work there will that woman make the same as a man? No. I mean seriously there is absolutely zero logic here. You are proposing a solution to a problem that in explicitly denies the solution that you are proposing. You are not being unbiased here although I think you are. You are simply attempting to justify the sexist element that exists on the basis that it's not your personal problem what happens to other people. In which case that's fine. Then why did you come to a liberal blog where people want to try to help correct for social ills if that's your attitude? Seriously. I cannot for the life of me see how you think that it benefits you to make this argument.
Believe it or not I make the argument to learn. I enjoy writing on subjects I can learn something from. I understand that LLA is not a handout. The only way for governments to fix anything is by legislating laws for problems that may or not may not exist. In this case Government would have to make a law that says all wages are equal regardless of circumstances. No one really knows the cause of this pay gap. As I have said so many times why wait on someone to fix your problem. I try to base my opinion on facts. No one has shown me on here "factually", without a doubt that the majority of the pay gap exists because of discrimination. If you have more references that I can look up please post them. I would be happy to read them. Seriously, I need to go to bed. Thanks for your time.
The very evidence you use to prove that discrimination doesn't exist states in it's own that as much as 90% of the pay gap may be due to discrimination. You are confusing fact w/ unanimity. The two are not the same.
Regarding the Republicans belief that women make equal pay with men...if that is true, then why do the Republicans not vote for the equal pay amendment. According to them there is already equal pay...so why not vote for equal pay!!!
Dear Rachel,
Not only is there a gender wage gap of 22.6%, it is further compounded by the separation of "spheres" where men dominate the areas of high paying fields such as medicine, law and science, and women are designated to the fields that have become women dominated fields, such as teaching, nursing and social work. Of course, the male-dominated fields are higher paying jobs, and the jobs dominated by women pay less. There also exists a gap within fields that stratifies the pay between the levels of success where men typically hold the jobs such as top management, and women hold lower paying jobs. Within the jobs dominated by women, women of color are often paid even lower wages and are placed at the lower skilled job levels.
Statistics on salary and employment data for men and women within academia suggest that "academia mirrors the rest of society; gender inequity still exists in academic settings" (Monroe, 216). "Discrimination occurs through a process of gender devaluation, whereby the status and power of an authoritative position is downplayed when that position is held by a woman" (Monroe). "Women accounted for only 44-45 percent of the recent Ph.D.s awarded, only 38 percent of the fulltime faculty in all institutions of higher education, and slightly more than 15 percent of the tenured and tenure-track faculty in "top" departments . . . the average salary for female faculty is roughly 80% of their male counterparts" (Monroe). The bottom line (as Gwendolyn Mink has stated), is that women's work is not valued. Structural changes need to be made to change these damaging attitudes. The devaluation of women's work is visible within the labor market as reflected in the gender wage gap, as well as it is visible in women's nonmarket caregiving work, which garners no income at all. Mink suggests reconceiving welfare as caregivers' income . . . providing mothers economic means in their own right.
In "The Price of Motherhood: Why the Most Important Job in the World is Still the Least Valued," Ann Crittenden informs (The Republicans) that: "In economics, a "free rider" is someone who benefits from a good without contributing to its provision: in other words, someone who gets something for nothing. By that definition, both the family and the global economy are classic examples of free riding. Both are dependent on female caregivers who offer their labor in return for little or no compensation."
How is the male a free loader if the wife chooses to stay at home? If the couple chooses to have kids, because there is not such thing as a mistaken pregnancy. Either you choose to use contraception or you do not. Even then it is not fool proof so you should be prepared for it failing. Whether the wife stays at home or the husband stays at home they are pulling there weight. The wife enjoys her husbands income whether she realizes it or not by staying at home. Staying home or working males and females are contributing to the household. Most husbands and wives help out in the house no matter who works and who does not. You can not give welfare to someone for the simple reason that someone "chooses" to have kids. You should not have kids unless you can afford them. It is not the Governments job to bail you out because you want to increase the population. What is Monroe? You need to provide more substance to you references. Just stating Monroe and a page number tells me nothing. Unless of course you do not want anyone to fact your writing, which could be the case. Ann Crittenden seems a bit in the past. I have far more stories of friends whose wives took them for a ride and the judge did not care. Judges award far more to wives then husbands (clearly my opinion at this point). My wife has a cousin whose ex-wife was a drug dealer and the judge still awarded custody to his ex. So to quote a person that clearly takes an extreme outlook on the women and men relationship only causes problems and solves none. A woman that stays home is not shameful. She earns every bit a part of the household potential to be successful as the husband. I know very few males that come home and do nothing. I know a few males that work and do all the housework as well. I guess I do not understand what the deal is. If you take significant time off for any reason you can not demand the same pay as those that have worked. Having a kid is a choice just as getting a job is a choice. People just need to live with there decisions instead of blaming someone else. That goes for all people women, men, black, white, orange, or pink.
Absolutely no one made this argument red. See you are so hyperbolic in your desire to protect men from an attack that hasn't been issued that you are now purposely misinterpreting people's blog posts.
Did you not watch the segment at all? And ftr this is called proper citation. At the worst you'd be complaining that links were not provided. At least be accurate in your criticisms.
A. custody issues are completely irrelevant in this discussion. This is a red herring that has nothing to do w/ the wage gap. B. absolutely no one is proposing that men be denied equal pay on the basis of women being given equal pay. Again you are apparently so blinded by the desire to protect your gender from an attack that no one is issuing that you cannot see how silly of an argument again. C. you would be- by your presentation here- again contradicting yourself. So now you're arguing, essentially, that in reality discrimination exists, but it exists for men and not for women. And this is okay....because?
You do realize you are engaging in the exact same behavior you're deriding, yes?
That is the entire point here. The argument being given was that society benefits by and large from the work that women do, but the society does not compensate women for this work. Society instead free loads off the implicit demands of the gender dynamic to gain the benefits of having such a dynamic, while simultaneously putting women at odds (w/ things like pay) as a punishment for violating the dynamic.
Because this had nothing to do w/ the issue at hand and was not the point being made
So then stop blaming the judges whom you say award things unfairly to women over that of men. See? I do not think you've thought through your complaints.
I am not blaming anyone for anything. I am merely bring up instances that show both sides are to blame for the same things. If you had read all of my posts may be you will understand. Once again no one on here has any idea for a solution besides someone else fix it. I say fix it yourself and get skills that show you can demand a higher wage. If all you do is pick little parts you are no better then Maddow, Limbaugh, Hannity, Farrakaun, Savage, and any of the idiots on TV and the radio that just sprout there hate and provide no real solutions to anything. Look I have no idea who Monroe is. Proper citation is to quote author and page number in your paragraph and have a quotations page later that shows in detail where the quote comes from. I tried to google Monroe, 216 and it came up with nothing. Monroe, 216 is not proof of a reference if I can not look it up using that info. Activist101 did the right thing and provided me with plenty of references that I could look up to refute him or her's point. I am sorry they provided no more for Monroe than that. I may have missed it I guess. If you can then by all means show a solution and enlighten me.
You are not blaming anyone for anything except for the fact that you're trying to blame both sides for the same thing. This is such a hypocritical statement are you kidding me?
Ahhh so now because I am calling you out on your comments it must be that I disagree simply because I didn't read your comments all the way through. So you a. automatically know how to solve the problems of gender inequality b. you know what it is that I am or am not reading c. you know my gender and d. you know that I am not marketable as an employee which is why I am complaining. Do you even realize how condescending and arrogant your statements are? Seriously? For the record dude I'm self employed and I wasn't bitching ever about the income inequality gap on the basis of pay that I personally have been denied. Has it ever occurred to you that men can be upset when women are paid discriminately? Not all men think or feel the way that you do. And lastly if this is such a complicated issue that no one person can solve then why exactly is it that you keep professing to know the solution?
I do not know the solution. I say in the absence of one make one for yourself. What ever that may be. One idea I had was to make yourself more marketable. Why blame someone else when the solution could be yours to find? I could care less if you are male or female. What the point of arguing a point if I just to go websites that think I might? There is not point in that. I can not learn anything from that. What is wrong with you that you think it could be wrong to argue a point with someone that might not have the same ideas as you?
Sorry for the misspellings I am getting tired.
I have problems when people pull one thing out of context and bend it to there idea of what right is. Never once did I say "you". Just because you took a discussion personal does not mean something was directed at you. Are you just looking for a fight? Not sure how that would work on here. By reading all of my posts you might understand my point better. Or I guess it could be the way I right. My wife is an English teacher and she tells me all time I can write to save my life. I am assuming then that since you are self-employed that all your female employees make equal wages as your males doing the same job? You are saying you believe in equal pay for equal work?
If you were actually interested in sharing ideas I'd agree w/ this sentiment. However you are not actually doing this as I've pointed out. You already assume that the wage gap doesn't exist or if it does that only whiny people are the ones who pretend to be affected by it. You then arbitrarily state that all people have to do is take responsibility for themselves and the wage gap will disappear. This is not the argument someone makes if they are simply attempting to have a discussion. This is the argument someone makes when they believe they are 100% correct and that lack of conformity is a threat. You don't seem to realize that there's a huge difference. Discussing an idea means being open to the possibility that you are wrong. You are not open to this possibility from the way that you assert your argument: your entire conclusion resides on the fact that you are completely correct. Your entire argument can be boiled down to the begging the question fallacy and that takes some effort to make possible.
It's becoming apparent to me that you aren't reading through what it is that you're writing. If what you meant to say here was that you didn't mean the specific reference of you but rather the generic term you then I could understand that. However this sentence contradicts your assertion:
This is you making the assertion that people who disagree w/ you are not reading through your posts and are not reading through the available factual information out there. You assert this why? Because you assert that you are already 100% correct. And that is what I can't understand. You clearly already think you know the answers to this problem so what is the point of discussing it? Since you already aren't open to a different point of view then what was the point? I don't think you are paying attention to what you're saying.
No. I am looking for some integrity from the debate. If you want to have an actual discussion then let's have an actual discussion, but the only way you can do this is to get off your damn soap box and stop thinking you know all ends of the universe =P. Until that happens this is a completely pointless discussion. You've already been caught openly contradicting yourself multiple times yet you don't apologize and instead assert that you're still correct. You've already been challenged and asked to back up your assertions, but you don't. At this point in time it's very clear that you just wanted to tell people "it doesn't matter stop whining" and then go away. And that makes zero sense.
Just over 50 years ago I was 22 years old, and I had a job I loved. I worked very hard,stayed late [without pay] came in early, finished all my work timely, and was a very dedicated, loyal employee. The boss called me in his office one day and told me my work ethic had not been unnoticed. He said a promotion was being considered, one that would mean a 15% pay increase. I was excited, until he said the choice was between me and, let's call him "Buttercup". It seems "Buttercup" started work about three months after I did with the Company, he had no college degree, this was his very first job actually because he had always been supported by his parents until he got married and now had to go to work to support his wife and her two children. "Buttercup" hated his work and it was pretty evident, he tried to hide unfinished reports, slipped out every chance he got, spent hours talking to girls in the office and took endless smoking breaks. In short, "Buttercup" was a lousy employee, a lousy husband, and a lousy all round person, however, the boss never seemed to notice. When I was told "Buttercup" was my only competition, I thought surely I had it in the bag! Everyone in the office I worked with thought so too. Then the boss called me into his office to render his decision between me and "Buttercup" and he called me in first. When I stood before him he started out really well, "Margo you are a valued employee here, your work speaks for itself" he says smiling. "You certainly deserve a promotion, and a raise, unfortunate however, "Buttercup" needs it more". "Poor "Buttercup" has a wife and kids to support, you are a single women" he says, "you don't really need the promotion with more money, but he does, so I am giving the promotion to him." I was stunned! I walked quietly out of his office and sat quietly at my desk trying to digest what had just happened. When I looked up I saw "Buttercup" proudly walking out of the bosses office, with a big grin from ear to ear, and looking straight at me. Something snapped inside my head at that moment, I was livid with anger. I walked into my bosses office and said in a low key voice "obviously you just thought my dedication and hard work had not gone unnoticed, somehow you managed to NOT notice it. You gave the promotion to a slacker with a wife and two kids over a single women that truly deserved it, so I'm thinking it will be to my best interest to move on, right now. He stood up, with a look of amazement, and said "don't do something in anger you'll be sorry for later Margo", the next time a promotion becomes available it just might have your name on it." I relied, again in a low key voice, "I never do anything only in anger Sir, I react this way to discrimination and I'm guessing you have no clue as to what you have just done and how bias, discriminatory, and stupid your decision really was to promote a brainless slacker to run the department." As I turned to walk out he said, "how about a $5 a week raise, would that make you feel better?" I replied, how do you figure that your continued insults make me feel better? I told him to give the extra $5. a week to "Buttercup", he obviously needed it more than me! Later I was contacted by seven more employees that had walked out that very same week, and after one month "Buttercup" was fired, for stealing office equipment and supplies.
Fifty years has passed since that day and a lot of things have changed, but not enough when it come to discriminating against women in the workplace. I worked another thirty-nine years before I retired, and I faced discrimination many times over those years. I even was attacked by one of my supervisors and at the time was told by him, "go ahead complain, it won't do you one bit of good because it's your word against mine and the good old boys hang together". He was right unfortunately, the good old boys blew me off and threatened me with retaliation unless I dropped the entire matter immediately. I dropped the matter, and again went looking for another job, always hoping the next job will be better, it seldom was when it came to pay, hours, overtime, promotions, and fairness but what are you going to do? You have to survive, you have to work. I worked for over forty-five years, and am now retired, with only my social security to live on, and as miserable as that can be at times, it sure beats going to work everyday and being treated like a second class citizen or a piece of meat hanging in a window. President Obama deserves a second term for many reasons, however, it brought tears to my eyes when I watched him sign the Lilly Ledbetter Act into law. President Obama has my vote, he truly cares about women, children, seniors, the poor, and all those less fortunate in America today. The President cares about working people, the middle class, our military and their families. The Republicans, especially Willard Romney, does not give a damn about anyone but themselves and increasing their wealth. Unless the Congress, and the Senate go majority Democrat,and President Obama stays in the Whitehouse in 2012, we are all doomed. We CANNOT let this happen to America. In 2012 vote for a better life for the average American, vote for holding on to Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid just as they are [just cut the fraud out if you can] and vote for a kinder more compassionate America-vote for President Obama and every decent Democrat running for office to replace a Republican. Dump the "Blue Dog Democrats" along with the Tea Party/Republican extremest and put in place a bright tomorrow for every American. Don't forget to show those right wing extremist war on women Republican Governors the door too! Show the Republican Party how strongly you object to their obstructionism, their pompous condescending attitude towards women, and their hatred of seniors, poor children, single mothers and unions. In short, do what I did fifty years ago, walk out on them, show them your mad as hell and you just won't sit still for the treatment your receiving from them anymore. You can sure bet if my old boss depended on votes to keep his job, he sure wouldn't have gotten my vote! Stand up to the Republican machine, and their chief robot Romney, tell them to get out of politics, and then show them the way by NOT voting for any of them in 2012. Good Luck Ladies!
Everyone is right that women make 77 cents on the dollar for a man's earnings. But what does that mean? I went to look at "Figure 2 Female-to-Male Earnings Ratio and Median Earnings of Full-Time, Year-Round Workers 15 Years and Older by Sex: 1960 to 2010" from the "Income, Poverty, andHealth Insurance Coverage inthe United States: 2010" report that was referenced on the show. This is a classic case of someone making the stats say what they want them to say then what they do say. All the table states is that there is a earning difference in males and females from the age of 15 years and older. By pulling anything else from this table is disingenuous at best. Now if Mrs. Maddow or anyone else on this blog pulled up the PINC-11 to try and get in depth details on what the numbers mean would get a little respect. But even these numbers are missing details on what the numbers could mean. For those of you that refuse to get your own info and just drink the Kool-aid the PINC-11 breaks down income by industry and job for males and females. Even then it does not say how long each person was in the job, how many that hold the job are qualified for the job, experience, and any number of other things that decide what a person makes for a job. By just taking the "Figure 2" as the gospel and not researching it further you are not solving the problem. The average American citizen whether male or female is not discriminatory. Most are good people and pay there employees a fair wage. I have only been around a short 35 years but I have heard just as many stories from Males with female bosses treating them bad as females with male bosses. Sorry Margofromencino, but you should have just talked with your feet. If you put up with bad behavior you only have yourself to blame.
http://www.economist.com/node/6800723#channel=f13d5c232764d1e&origin=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.economist.com&channel_path=%2Ffb%2Ffb_channel.html%3Ffb_xd_fragment%23%3F%3D%26xd_sig%3Df23c33b6ce91e7%26&transport=postmessage
http://www.iwpr.org/publications/pubs/the-gender-wage-gap-2010-updated-march-2011
http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1983185,00.html
http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/2012/04/glynn_wage_gap.html
thank you I will look them up.
The economist says some great things but as far as this topic goes it just states there is a gap and nothing about why.
Your second article I tried to download but my antivirus says it was a virus. So I googled the title and came up with http://www.catalyst.org/publication/217/womens-earnings-and-income. The following is a small sample of the article, please go read it. It actually goes over why it thinks a pay gap exists:
"Although Bureau of Labor Statistics shows that women’s median earnings are less than men’s, the reasons behind the gap are highly debated. Some studies state that the gap can be explained to a large extent by non-discriminatory factors and are based in a division of labor in the home that relies more heavily on women than on men. Women are more likely than men to have interrupted careers, taking time off for family reasons (i.e., child care or elder care), and are more likely to work part-time. Women tend to be employed in "helping" and support professions, positions that are not considered comparable in pay to men’s work. Women also tend to be clustered in lower-paying positions.28 Women also have fewer incentives to invest in market-based formal education and on-the-job training and may avoid jobs that demand large investment in skills.29
Meanwhile, further studies have found that a significant wage gap exists between women and men even when expected factors like family and labor force experience were eliminated and look toward systemic discrimination as one of the explanations.30"
The next article from Time magazine actually makes my point. It also says that the numbers of inequality alone are not taking into account differences in qualifications between the sexes.
"The answer depends on whom you ask — and so does the size of the gap. Some say 77% is overly grim. One reason: it doesn't account for individual differences between workers. Once you control for factors like education and experience, notes Francine Blau — who, along with fellow Cornell economist Lawrence Kahn, published a study on the 1998 wage gap — women's earnings rise to 81% of men's. Factor in occupation, industry and whether they belong to a union, and they jump to 91%. That's partly because women tend to cluster in lower-paying fields. The most-educated swath of women, for example, gravitates toward the teaching and nursing fields. Men with comparable education become business executives, scientists, doctors and lawyers — jobs that pay significantly more."
Quote from you last reference:
Nearly half of the wage gap between men and women is due to differences in occupations, with women concentrated in industries that have historically been paid less. But even when controlling for occupation, education, and experience, economists cannot explain about 40 percent of the wage gap between men and women. But part of the gender gap is due to the fact that the institutions around us—schools, churches, workplaces, and government—have not adjusted to reflect the realities of how today’s families work and live.
But we do know this: About 10 percent of the gender wage gap is due to differences in work experience between men and women, which are often the result of caregiving responsibilities. As workers with care responsibilities withdraw from the workforce or limit their time at work, they take home less income in the short run, are less likely to earn raises and promotions at the same pace, have less access to workplace retirement benefits, earn less in Social Security retirement benefits, and accumulate lower lifetime earnings.
This contradicts your argument red
And again I ask you- and this is good....because? So we should be happy that a woman makes 91 cents for every 1 dollar that a man makes? Because this is more preferable? You do realize that you are attempting to justify that the wage gap exists by making this argument, yes? You are essentially stating that it's OK for women to make less and for society to encourage women to make less. You are essentially arguing that it's OK for women to not take positions that pay higher wages and for women to be socially expected to take more time off. What exactly is the benefit of arguing this?
So by your own argument 90% of the gender wage gap is due to non-justifiable reasons. Good to know
And this, again, contradicts your earlier premise that there is no wage gap in existence. Le sighs
I only cut small pieces of the articles. Read the entire articles and three of them state that there are more to wage differences then discriminatory behavior. It states that experts, whoever they are, can not agree on what factually causes wage differences. As i have said before on here I am sure there is some wage discrimination going on. I have no doubt that the last 23 percent of difference is not due in whole or in majority to discrimination. The statement you hold me to is proof
"economists cannot explain about 40 percent of the wage gap between men and women"
only represents 9.2 percent of that pay gap. That is one article that states 9 percent of the pay gap may or may not have anything to do with discrimination. Stop drinking the Kool-aid and read the articles without prejudice. Read them all. Try not to concentrate on what you want them to say but what they actually have on black and white.
I am making an attempt to look at this from both sides. I am not going to conform to an idea because someone else "thinks" its cool. If I do that I give up my soul to the devil. If you analyze the data in these articles they state there is no reliable explanation as to why the gap exists. So I say take it in your own hands to give yourself the skills to demand a higher wage. Solve your own problems. Do not wait for someone else to do it.
I am not drinking kool aid and under what assumption to you make this assertion? It seems to me that you are knee jerk assuming that since you are a know-it-all that if someone doesn't automatically agree w/ you it must because they are uninformed. I was not addressing the studies on their entirety because I was addressing them in the context that you made your argument. This has to do w/ the argument that you are presenting, you understand this, yes? You make the claim that the gender wage gap doesn't exist. You then provide sources that state that it does exist. I call you out on this and now you state that it does exist (therefore admitting you were lying in the beginning OR you are lying now), but that it's not that big of a deal. See this is the problem. You are so hell bent on winning the argument that you aren't being objective. You keep acting like you're trying to be objective but you're not.
No you are not. You prove that you are not by your conclusion
Your conclusion here automatically asserts that the wage gap doesn't exist for discriminatory reasons and therefore can be fixed. And that it can be fixed- you arrogantly and arbitrarily assume- on the basis of what you have decided will work. You have no reason to believe this (as you state because you do not know why the gender gap exists) but never the less you still assert that you are correct.
Are you even reading how contradictory your statements are?
Ok last one. I am not being contradictory. If you read all my posts and the posts before for the whole conversation you will find that I am arguing that the majority of the pay gap can not be attributed to discrimination. I argued that looking at just one number of 77 percent is disingenuous at best. I argued that out of the four articles given to me for references only three talked about why it exists. It exists is not in question but why it exists. If you actually read the articles three of them state that no experts can agree on why the gap exists. As a solution I said do not rely on someone else to solve it. Solve it for yourself and make your self more marketable. You know that whole thing about being accountable for your actions thing? You can pick each peace apart and make it sound how you want to of what I have written. If you would go and read the article yourself that I copy and pasted, you will find in one paragraph that states 40 percent of the gap can not be explained to non-discriminatory means. Not sure where you got 90 percent out of the next paragraph but if you read it it states that 10 percent of the gap is attributed to differences in experience and nothing more. You can demonize you all want to. If you are not going to use the quotes for what they actually saying, instead of what you want them to say, I am not sure what I can say to that. Go read them for yourself. If you have no solution to a problem that exists then make your own. Why wait for someone else to fix it?
I am not demonizing you. I am pointing out how your argument makes zero sense. First you assert that there is no wage gap, then when that's debunked you change the argument to well there is one but it's not a big deal. Then you go on to make up a hypothetical solution that you have no basis for asserting as being true or possible and then you get defensive when people ask you to provide any rationale for why you are making these statements. I have not attacked you personally. I have, however, attacked your argument. You cannot sit here and state that I am taking your quotes out of context. These are the quotes as you presented them for your argument. You are making an assertion here and that assertion doesn't seem to make any sense and seems to be contradictory in it's nature. When you've been asked to elaborate your answer has been to repeat the same statement over again. Remember up to this point I have not provided a counter argument
Looking at the grand scheme of (mostly) Republican posturing on the question of women's pay (as in "we don't need the Lilly Ledbetter Act because women are not paid less than men"):
- if Republicans for the most part are not willing to pass a law on the grounds that there is "no problem" with that particular concern, why then do they insist on passing laws sometimes two or three times in the same state to address a concern that does not exist? [defining marriage as being only between men and women, when in fact no gay or lesbian couple can get married in the states where they pass such laws]
Just sayin'
wrong topic.
hoosierprof, you noticed that, too? Just like there is no voter fraud, but they have to pass voter suppression laws just in case? Why should the lies about women being paid the same be any different? If a man and a woman have the same education with the same job, with the same number of years in that job, the man gets paid more unless it's a union job. All the bull about women taking time off for kids is just that, bull. Not every woman has kids and there are a lot of women that give up having children for their careers. What's the excuse then? They MIGHT have children?
The saddest part of this whole fracas could be that by disputing the very fabric of reality, itself, the GOP has given its base a chance to shout "Liberal Media Bias!" instead of engaging in the policy debate that actually matters. The saddest thing could also be that lying about the actual, factual reality of the world is one of our most cherished political tactics. The saddest thing could also be that the gentleman who went onto a news program to produce and promote total inaccurate lies to serve a partisan agenda that is contrary to the will of the people members of his party pretend to serve will undoubtedly be part of the news cycle, promoting this same lie, and probably be on the news for years to come doing this same, exact thing with different issues, because stating factual untruths in a public place dedicated to political debate is somehow exempt from the sort of basic, reality-based statements that are expected in news coverage of things like sports, where the stats don't change between speakers. Could you imagine two newscasters openly disputing which team won last night's game, even though the factual score couldn't be more clear, every night on cable news?
I wish lying on television got you disinvited from news shows, and removed from editorials in newspapers and websites, but it only seems to be what you do to enhance your career.
Why is the title "Links for the 12/21 TRMS"? Is that just a typo, or does 12/21 mean something, other than a date, that I'm missing?