General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsWomen's Equal Work doesn't translate into Equal pay.
There are people--and even people here on DU!!--who would have us believe that the Wage Gap is a myth. In practice, that means they are saying that all individual women deserve lesser pay for FULL TIME work, because some individual women work fewer career-hours due to motherhood.
Fatherhood affects SOME men's work but I've never seen argumentation that all men should suffer for that.
Or, let me draw a parallel to the "Many women put motherhood before career, therefore, all women should be paid less than men" argument:
ALCOHOLISM affects work performance. Alcohol abuse statistics also tell us that a total of 23 million Americans suffer from substance abuse addiction, and 18 million is alcohol related. Almost three times as many men as women are problem drinkers.http://www.learn-about-alcoholism.com/alcoholism-statistics.html
THEREFORE, ALL MEN should earn less than women. Hey, it's only fair, right? They're doing it to themselves. Men drink, men crap up their careers, men deserve lesser pay.
Of course, no intelligent person would ever consider such a proposition. Does that clarify how specious the Women's Wage Gap Deniers' arguments are?
Feel the urge to leave work 23% early today? After all, women’s equal work doesn’t translate to equal pay - the typical woman working full time, year round is still paid just 77 cents for every dollar paid to her male counterpart. Please share and help spread the word about the wage gap!
By: National Women's Law Center
https://www.facebook.com/nationalwomenslawcenter
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
TheMastersNemesis
(10,602 posts)There is more than a wage gap with women. There was a chart on the net recently showing at what age a person"s income peaks. Now thirty years ago a man's earnings peaked near retirement around 60 to 65. This chart was very revealing in that the age of earnings peaking out included women as well as men.
The chart exposed another gap. Now men's wages peak at around 45. For woman it is 39. That would mean that after those ages are reached the income remains steady or goes down and likely will not go up until one can retire. I have been saying for a long time that careers are now over by 45 instead of 60 or 65. What surprised me is that the chart showed that women's income peaks at 39.
This data reveals how messed up our labor and employment market is now since the GOP and the conservatives decided to change everything. In the years when families have the most expense when children are being readied to leave the home and seek their own lives, the parents are being deprived of the income they need to fill those needs and also save for "their" retirement.
BTW if you speculate what age a woman's earnings peaked 30 years ago it would have been around 59. That would be true considering that the age difference is 6 years.
Welcome to a brave new world sponsored by the Reagan Revolution.
BlancheSplanchnik
(20,219 posts)Hi Nemesis! 
Seems like the Reagan Devolution played on a myriad of humanity's basest instincts....I once saw an article in Harper's Magazine about Reality Shows and Repuke Conservatism...how they exemplified the republican "rugged individualism=I want mine and let everyone else die" frame of mind.
this data you mention seems to illustrate the Youth/Looks fetishism that has taken over the public square. I wonder if it is this bad in other countries, other cultures.
Women have always been harder hit by ageism/looksism.
TBF
(32,047 posts)My peak income was in my early 30s - when I decided to go back to grad school (and had a baby) it went downhill from there. Thankfully my husband did grad school at the same time and he makes a decent salary so I finally decided to stay home with the kids awhile. I have no illusions what it will be like when/if I return to the labor force (or volunteer force). And on top of that the repugs want to make the retirement age older ...
BlancheSplanchnik
(20,219 posts)
lumberjack_jeff
(33,224 posts)It's not only considered, it is a reality.
If alcoholism, like childbirth, results in absence from the workforce, it does change ones earnings.
In the case of childrearing, their partners who are fortunate enough to have jobs will work overtime to make up for the lost wages.
In 2007, the AAUW tried to quantify the earnings gap for people doing qualitatively and quantitatively the same work. The gap at that time was 5%.
Since that time, the recession has taken a huge toll on men. Using 1960 as a baseline, roughly 20% of the male workforce is out of work. Unsurprisingly, AAUW has not repeated the study.
http://www.economist.com/node/18618613
This issue is one that only helps democrats among single women. For men and married women (who vote as a bloc) the fact that the husband will earn 28% less than his grandfather is the problem for the family. "The pay gap" is a distorted and manufactured wedge issue that alienates us from MOST voters.
[div style="display:inline; background-color:#FFFF66;"]Wedge issues: if most of the voters are on the other side of the wedge, you're doing it wrong.
http://www.greenbergresearch.com/index.php?ID=2741
Married women vote more like men than single women, because their interests are not the same. Married people care about their family's income and wellbeing, more so than their own.
BlancheSplanchnik
(20,219 posts)in manly outrage over the proposition that perhaps, just maybe, women ARE being mistreated. You do not like the idea that MEN might not be the winners in the "Who's the most maltreated?" competition.
[font size=3]You even say the KEY PHRASE yourself:
If alcoholism, like childbirth, results in absence from the workforce, it does change ones earnings. [/font]
Indeed. It changes ONE'S EARNINGS. The ONE whose performance suffers on account of alcohol should meet consequences. Quite rightly.
ALL men, however, should NOT be subject to such consequence based on the behavior of a percentage of the whole. This isn't insurance projections we're talking about.
All women, however, do suffer from wage inequality--justifications for such a state of affairs often rely on assumptions that women work fewer hours due to parenting, generalized to the female population as a whole. The entire demographic suffers for the behavior of the smaller percentage.
Zalatix
(8,994 posts)NOBODY is the winner in this "who's the most maltreated" competition. It's not a competition. Men and women alike get mistreated in different ways. Instead of "who's the most maltreated" why don't we discuss how we can help each other without regards to gender?
lumberjack_jeff
(33,224 posts)"All women suffer from wage inequality"? No. You seem confused about the concept of averages. It is against the law to pay a woman less for the same work. Individual women who put in comparable hours in comparable careers have comparable pay to individual men in the same roles.
The fact that 82% of women choose to have kids and thus accept the tradeoff skews the average. Oprah's net worth/income isn't affected by another woman's decision to have children.
If facts sound like "chest-beating" to you, it's really not my issue.
The problem is that yours isn't a harmless POV. Half of women marry, and when they do, they dramatically change their voting habits. Married women vote more like men than single women.
It is not implausible that when they marry, they find that their family's interest is aligned with maximizing the husband's wages, and rhetoric which attacks it is repellent, and supports it, attractive.
This is a wedge issue based on bogus data with the wedge placed in the wrong place.
lumberjack_jeff
(33,224 posts)It's not an assumption.
Also, far more women work part-time, and these work choices are largely because of parenting.
http://www.bls.gov/news.release/atus.t04.htm
HiPointDem
(20,729 posts)that no such sources have been posted & all rebuttals of the OP are akin to hate speech?
lumberjack_jeff
(33,224 posts)Usually they say "read the studies!!!"
The studies are never actual studies, they are manifestos of one type or another.
hfojvt
(37,573 posts)"There are people--and even people here on DU!!--who would have us believe that the Wage Gap is a myth. In practice, that means they are saying that all individual women deserve lesser pay for FULL TIME work,"
You seem to have shifted the argument.
The idea that there is a wage gap means
Man with X experience, Y education, working job Z gets paid $A.
if there is a gap, then
Woman with X experience, Y education, working job Z gets paid $A*(1-B)
where B is the wage gap.
Calling that a myth means in most cases B = 0.
But what you are saying now, is NOT that you want men and women to get the same pay for the same job with the same experience and same education. No, you want a woman with less experience to get paid the same as a man with more experience, because you want her to get work credit for the time she spends on childbirth and childcare.
Noiw I sorta thought that the whole point of paying people more for their experience was that the experience they have makes them more productive - better at their jobs. Granted, there are many things people can do on their off-time which will impact their productivity either positively or negatively, but how do you quantify that? And why should an employer not reward somebody who stays with the company more than the employer rewards somebody who does not?
nolimitcracka
(1 post)Well put.
Zalatix
(8,994 posts)Women being paid less than men, the man-cession, these are subjects that are being thrown out there to divide male and female voters. Guess who THAT benefits. Wage gaps aren't a myth, mass redundancy of men is not a myth, but we need gender-neutral solutions to these problems, not "well my gender's problems are worse than yours!"
The solutions we need are stronger family leave laws, laws that mandate parity in pay, and childcare subsidies. (I know there are "pro-life" Freepers who are reading this: to you, I say fuck off.) Corporations that lay off workers should be forced to pay severance packages and fund retraining, plus pay heftier taxes that year, too. It may even be necessary to adopt Germany's system of mandatory employee ownership.
lumberjack_jeff
(33,224 posts)Economic populism is the way to bring men and married women back to the party. Stronger family leave laws, mandated vacation and tightening up overtime rules would go a long way toward making all labor more valuable and improve quality of life for families.
For the last 49 years, the law has prohibited pay discrimination. When you say "parity in pay" do you mean something other than;
HiPointDem
(20,729 posts)Meanwhile, some of the people who are all riled up about female wage gaps have no problem with mass layoffs & wage & benefit take-backs for mostly female teachers.
CreekDog
(46,192 posts)
lumberjack_jeff
(33,224 posts)CreekDog
(46,192 posts)yes.
BlancheSplanchnik
(20,219 posts)Call-outs are frowned upon, so I used the dreaded reference, "some"....but what I said about "some" people is that they deny that injustice exists. That is not "hate speech", that is descriptive.
I used a gendered parallel to illustrate my point. I used reputable sources--about-alcoholism/statistics, and the National Women's Law Center.
I'm not seeing the "Hate Speech" in that.
"wtf" and apropos to hate group sites are pretty vague aspersions. Can you help me understand what your objection is?
CreekDog
(46,192 posts)when the wage gap is easily demonstrated with facts and has been confirmed in many, many places.
but the hate groups would have you believe that women's lower pay is deserved and that in fact, men are the victims of women.
keep posting the truth.
HiPointDem
(20,729 posts)position.
HiPointDem
(20,729 posts)CreekDog
(46,192 posts)you said I was equating her arguments to men's rights' bogus arguments.
she was creating an argument which is never used against men by feminists and comparing it to an argument used by men's rights advocates.
both are bogus arguments. the only difference is that men's rights groups actually employ the one set, mainstream women's groups, on the other hand, do not.
HiPointDem
(20,729 posts)of the op for hate speech.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=791991
you haven't said anything yet to convince me i was wrong.
CreekDog
(46,192 posts)key difference.
HiPointDem
(20,729 posts)not one bit. to say they were is just a blatant smear.
BlancheSplanchnik
(20,219 posts)Similarly, I think any disagreement with my OP, no matter how spurious, unfounded, apocryphal or insufficient, is and would be pleasing to you.
What makes me think this? You're frantically leveling sloppy accusations at sound disagreements, and growing shriller at every turn. You haven't yet offered meaningful logic.
lumberjack_jeff
(33,224 posts)DU needs a variant of Godwin's law; The first one to attempt to shut down dissent by playing the "hate speech" card loses.
Particularly in such an inept way.
"some posts here would be perfectly acceptable on hate group sites"
... And on sites dedicated to exchanging recipes, or fixing cars, or star wars fan sites.
Indeed, CD's post is designed to say nothing useful, it is simply a vehicle for delivering clumsy hate innuendo.
HiPointDem
(20,729 posts)such.
Link me to my "sloppy accusations to sound disagreements".
And again, the personal attack: "shriller"
HiPointDem
(20,729 posts)this thread.
*you* simply compared them to arguments made by "hate groups" -- which is an attempt to smear by association.
the op keeps rambling on about her alcoholism straw man.
1. Equal pay for equal work has been the law of the land since 1963:
The following is the text of the Equal Pay Act of 1963 (Pub. L. 88-38) (EPA), as amended, as it appears in volume 29 of the United States Code, at section 206(d). The EPA, which is part of the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938, as amended (FLSA), and which is administered and enforced by the EEOC, prohibits sex-based wage discrimination between men and women in the same establishment who perform jobs that require substantially equal skill, effort and responsibility under similar working conditions.
http://www.eeoc.gov/laws/statutes/epa.cfm
The Equal Pay Act requires that men and women in the same workplace be given equal pay for equal work. The jobs need not be identical, but they must be substantially equal. Job content (not job titles) determines whether jobs are substantially equal. All forms of pay are covered by this law, including salary, overtime pay, bonuses, stock options, profit sharing and bonus plans, life insurance, vacation and holiday pay, cleaning or gasoline allowances, hotel accommodations, reimbursement for travel expenses, and benefits. If there is an inequality in wages between men and women, employers may not reduce the wages of either sex to equalize their pay.
An individual alleging a violation of the EPA may go directly to court and is not required to file an EEOC charge beforehand. The time limit for filing an EPA charge with the EEOC and the time limit for going to court are the same: within two years of the alleged unlawful compensation practice or, in the case of a willful violation, within three years. The filing of an EEOC charge under the EPA does not extend the time frame for going to court.
Equal Pay/Compensation and Sex Discrimination
Title VII also makes it illegal to discriminate based on sex in pay and benefits. Therefore, someone who has an Equal Pay Act claim may also have a claim under Title VII.
http://www.eeoc.gov/laws/types/equalcompensation.cfm
2. The "23%" number comes from a crude comparison of *all* full-time male and female workers. After controlling for factors such as experience, occupation choice, education, & hours worked, the unexplained fraction shrinks to under 10%.
In 2009 the median income of FTYR workers was $47,127 for men, compared to $36,278 for women. The female-to-male earnings ratio was 0.77, not statistically different from the 2008 ratio. The female-to-male earnings ratio of 0.77 means that, in 2009, female FTYR workers earned 23% less than male FTYR workers. The statistic does not take into account differences in experience, skill, occupation, education or hours worked, as long as it qualifies as full-time work.
However, in 2010, an economist testified to the U.S. Congress Joint Economic Committee that studies "always find that some portion of the wage gap is unexplained" even after controlling for measurable factors that are assumed to influence earnings. The unexplained portion of the wage gap is attributed to gender discrimination. The estimates for the discriminatory component of the gender pay gap include 5% & and 7%.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Male%E2%80%93female_income_disparity_in_the_United_States
Now, you & the OP can keep shrieking about "23%!" & implying anyone who doesn't sign onto that number is allied with hate groups, but it's misleading garbage.
lumberjack_jeff
(33,224 posts)In 2009 the median income of FTYR workers was $47,127 for men, compared to $36,278 for women. The female-to-male earnings ratio was 0.77, not statistically different from the 2008 ratio. The female-to-male earnings ratio of 0.77 means that, in 2009, female FTYR workers earned 23% less than male FTYR workers. The statistic does not take into account differences in experience, skill, occupation, education or hours worked, as long as it qualifies as full-time work.
The average female full time worker works 7.75 hours on the average day. The average male full time worker works an average of 8.17 hours on the average day. Thus, full-time women work 95% of the hours that men do. Given that this differential is entirely overtime hours, in a fair world, one would expect to see the average man paid 7.5% more from this factor alone, even if they produced qualitatively the same work, with the same experience in the same jobs.
But men don't take the same jobs. Men represent 92% of workplace fatalities because they take the riskier, higher paying jobs.
And they don't have the same level of experience. When men and women choose the same careers, a man spends fewer years out of the workforce.
• The average person was employed during 77 percent of the weeks from age 18 to age 40. Generally, men spent a larger percent of weeks employed than did women (85 versus 70 percent). Women spent much more time out of the labor force (26 percent of weeks) than did men (10 percent of weeks).
By the time a man and a woman reach age 40, the man has 21% more experience in the job. It seems apparent that the individual with more experience is, other things being equal, the preferred choice for greater responsibility.
http://www.bls.gov/news.release/atus.t04.htm
http://www.bls.gov/news.release/archives/nlsoy_08252006.pdf
CreekDog
(46,192 posts)i didn't mention 23%
as for "shrieking", which I also didn't do...interesting word choice.
HiPointDem
(20,729 posts)once again, you didn't touch the arguments. Just meta.
BlancheSplanchnik
(20,219 posts)and comparing it to an equivalently bogus argument continually used by men's rights advocates.-------
YEs, exactly what I'm trying to highlight.
Unbelievable, how angrily people react when they're dedicated to NOT SEEING.
HiPointDem
(20,729 posts)BlancheSplanchnik
(20,219 posts)leaves three pointing back at you.
HiPointDem
(20,729 posts)the criticisms of your "23%" number. that's why you're in attack mode.
goodbye.
BlancheSplanchnik
(20,219 posts)Goodbye!
obamanut2012
(26,068 posts)They usually deny the wage gap and other issues, and the SPLC has them listed as hate groups.
HiPointDem
(20,729 posts)co-discussants you don't have to deal with their arguments.
obamanut2012
(26,068 posts)ie MRA sites, which groups have been cited as the SPLC as hate groups. I believe that is what Creekdog is saying. I'm not calling any posters in this thread a member of a hate group, and it doesn't appear he is, either.
HiPointDem
(20,729 posts)same points are made by reputable academic researchers.
The 23% number comes from crude comparison of all full-time male & female workers. It's not a comparison of equal pay for equal work, it's a comparison of all full-time male & female workers as two lumps, with no attempt to compare them in terms of type of work, years of experience, hours worked, career interruption for child-rearing, etc.
When those things are factored in, the pay gap = 5-7%. Still a gap, but a lot less "shocking" than 23%.
Which is why, I assume, people with skin in the game keep using the 23% number & insisting that anyone who questions it hates women.
In 2009 the median income of FTYR workers was $47,127 for men, compared to $36,278 for women. The female-to-male earnings ratio was 0.77, not statistically different from the 2008 ratio.[2] The female-to-male earnings ratio of 0.77 means that, in 2009, female FTYR workers earned 23% less than male FTYR workers. The statistic does not take into account differences in experience, skill, occupation, education or hours worked, as long as it qualifies as full-time work. However, in 2010, an economist testified to the U.S. Congress Joint Economic Committee that studies "always find that some portion of the wage gap is unexplained" even after controlling for measurable factors that are assumed to influence earnings. The unexplained portion of the wage gap is attributed to gender discrimination.
The estimates for the discriminatory component of the gender pay gap include 5% and 7%.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Male%E2%80%93female_income_disparity_in_the_United_States#cite_note-jec-2
Here's one of those studies that attempted to compare apples to apples:
Invest in Women, Invest in America: December 2010
A Comprehensive Review of Women in the U.S. Economy Joint Economic Committee
While causality is complex, there is a strong empirical association between the gender gap (pay
differences between women and men) and the family gap (pay differences between households
with and without children) .8, 9, 10 Economist Jane Waldfogel’s research (1998a) shows that 40%
to 50% of the gender gap can be explained by the impact of parental and marital status on
men’s and women’s earnings. Moreover, Waldfogel (1998b) shows that while the gender pay gap
has been decreasing, the pay gap related to parenthood is increasing.
http://jec.senate.gov/public/?a=Files.Serve&File_id=9118a9ef-0771-4777-9c1f-8232fe70a45c
Jane Waldfogel doesn't belong to any hate groups, and neither do the people who presented this report to congress.
lumberjack_jeff
(33,224 posts)5-7% is the percent remaining after the easily quantifiable obvious causative factors are subtracted. (Hours worked, experience in the career and career choice)
A more accurate statement is that the discriminatory pay gap is no more than 5-7%, and much of that can plausibly be explained by factors like men's willingness to negotiate for best salary, and the motivations that result from the fact that the family is more likely to be dependent on his salary than hers.
BlancheSplanchnik
(20,219 posts)Correct.
If you can repeatedly attack and respond to all resistance by hurling one buzzword over and over again, you don't have to deal with their arguments.
HiPointDem
(20,729 posts)BlancheSplanchnik
(20,219 posts)highlighting your "argument" mode and tone.
HiPointDem
(20,729 posts)a personal attack.
BlancheSplanchnik
(20,219 posts)of your argument.
I'll address your points when you make some.
Pointing an accusatory finger and repeating "smear smear smear" over and over again is not argumentation.
HiPointDem
(20,729 posts)hate. That's a smear.
I've made a number of points in this thread. You have only made personal attacks.
BlancheSplanchnik
(20,219 posts)Another poster said that to you.
My comments to you have been focused on your lack of thesis.
I've just gone through and read every one of your posts. What I see: You keep accusing me and everyone else of "smearing....smearing...smearing...." etc., but you haven't expounded one single point, not one explanation of what you see to be the issue.
You're not offering anything for people to engage with, in terms of useful discussion.
Honeycombe8
(37,648 posts)this gets fixed. This has been a problem ALL my life.
I have always known that if you want to get paid less, pick a career that is performed mainly by females. Those vocations generally pay less than those performed by men.
If you want to get paid more, pick a career where men mainly do it. But be prepared to be on the lookout for equal pay.
BUT if you take off for maternity leave, or repeated days off for sick children, you can (rightly) expect that to affect your pay. You're either at work or not, regardless whether the reason is a good one or not. If you're married, the hubby should share equally in days off for sick children.
So for the masses, women's pay will always be a little less, because they take off for maternity leave (most, but not all, of them). But the difference should be minimal, as an average.
4th law of robotics
(6,801 posts)Has anyone actually made that argument?
Or have people pointed out that if you account for the fact that many women put off their career for motherhood that explains much of the discrepancy.
If a large percentage of men had their career suffer due to alcoholism, leading to women earning more on average in the same field by accumulating more hours and more seniority, you can absolutely guarantee that would be offered up as an explanation. Not because "all men should be penalized for the actions of some" but because there are enough to skew the stats.
CreekDog
(46,192 posts)HiPointDem
(20,729 posts)4th law of robotics
(6,801 posts)and B) saying that some factor might lead to a shift in the median wages is not the same thing as saying all women should be paid less automatically because of this.
Let's say hypothetically that all men and women are getting paid exactly the same for the same level of work.
But 20% of women take time off for families/maternity but only 5% of men do. That would necessarily lead to a shift in the median income of women below that of men because the 20% of women taking a hit for family reasons will outweigh the 5% of men who are doing so. Both men and women who take leave for family reasons suffer the exact same loss of wages but because more women do it the net result is that women end up earning 15% less than men if you just average it all together.
Is that proof that women are being paid less for the same work?
CreekDog
(46,192 posts)you want a link from me after you posted your BS reasoning for supporting the wage gap?
how about you study the issue yourself, since you don't know anything about it beyond some anecdotal rationalizations. rationalizations are not facts, by the way.
and i'd prefer to argue with a fellow liberal.
4th law of robotics
(6,801 posts)that some people argue in favor of paying *all* women less because *some* take maternity leave.
You are clearly not capable of discussing this issue rationally and without emotion, however so I see no point is furthering the talk since I suspect I will just get further anger and accusations from your end, regardless of how I post my side of things.
Odin2005
(53,521 posts)...support for mothers like they they have in places like Sweden. The Swedes have mandated paid maternity leave and state-run day-care. Here in the US many mothers have to quit their jobs in order to have the time to take care of young kids. And when those moms go back to work they inevitably start at the low end at the pay scale.
taught_me_patience
(5,477 posts)Spreading disinformation to make a point discredits the message.
The 5-10% gap is serious and we should work hard to try to eliminate it.
