General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region Forums
49 Years After Kennedy Signed The Equal Pay Act, Women Still Earn 77 Cents To A Man’s Dollar
This act represents many years of effort by labor, management, and several private organizations unassociated with labor or management, to call attention to the unconscionable practice of paying female employees less wages than male employees for the same job. This measure adds to our laws another structure basic to democracy. It will add protection at the working place to the women, the same rights at the working place in a sense that they have enjoyed at the polling place.
While much remains to be done to achieve full equality of economic opportunity–for the average woman worker earns only 60 percent of the average wage for men–this legislation is a significant step forward.
…It is a first step. It affirms our determination that when women enter the labor force they will find equality in their pay envelopes.
Exactly 49 years later, women still earn just 77 cents for every dollar earned by a man. Over a lifetime, the pay gap adds up to more than $430,000 in lost wages for an individual on women.
http://thinkprogress.org/economy/2012/06/10/496961/49-years-after-kennedy-signed-the-equal-pay-act-women-still-earn-77-cents-to-a-mans-dollar/
Just last week
Senate GOP Blocks Pay Equity Bill
Republicans framed the measure as a useless bureaucratic roadblock that would have hindered free enterprise and helped trial lawyers. Sen. Dean Heller (R-NV) called the bill a “war on free enterprise.” But Heller’s record on women’s issues is far from stellar: He previously voted against Paycheck Fairness when he was in the House of Representatives and also voted against the Lily Ledbetter Fair pay act, another pay equity bill.
Pay discrimination isn’t some fantasy of the left — it actually prevents families from higher earnings. On average, women make 77 cents to a man’s dollar. And that’s happening while more women are becoming the primary breadwinners or dual-earners in their family and a larger number of women with high degrees entering the job market.
Over her lifetime, the average woman loses enough in wages to feed a family of four for 37 years.
http://thinkprogress.org/economy/2012/06/05/495106/senate-blocks-paycheck-fairness/
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Darth_Kitten
(14,192 posts)They don't want all those higher-paying, male-dominated jobs. Plus, the occupations they choose are not high-risk, so they really shouldn't be paid more. As well, they opt for part-time work, because of course, raising children is a woman's responsibility, and if you do MORE household work, etc, then you shouldn't be paid more. You took yourselves out of the paid workforce, ladies, why do you complain so much? Plus, a man needs to feed his family, you'd only be spending your money on purses and lipsticks.
BlancheSplanchnik
(20,219 posts)Statistics prove you must dock their pay--ALL OF 'EM!!!!-- at the same time you hire 'em-----BEFORE they've done gone and started poppin' out them biscuits.
lumberjack_jeff
(33,224 posts)Except for purses and lipsticks, there's no need for the sarcasm tag. You're pretty much right on the money.
Women don't seek careers as powerline technicians, despite the fact that they make good money. And they do opt for part-time work largely because of the support required by the children they've chosen to have. And no, an employer shouldn't pay her more per hour than her male peers, despite the fact that she does the laundry when she gets home. And yes, taking 30% of ones young adulthood out of the workforce has consequences for one's career advancement.
I see little reason to provide links for all those facts, because you've obviously already seen them.
xmas74
(29,674 posts)and couldn't even get a darn interview.
In my neck of the woods, women are usually passed over for any kind of manual labor jobs unless that's the employer's only option.
treestar
(82,383 posts)They are the jobs they can get.
The employer should pay her the same for the same work.
Men should pull their weight around the house, too.
lumberjack_jeff
(33,224 posts)What is it about math and hard sciences that exclude women in college?
It is infantilizing to say that women have no self agency. They do, and they make choices that are consistent with the life they want to live.
And men share a responsibility to care for the household. It is up to the parties involved to figure out what that means.
noiretextatique
(27,275 posts)there are in fact female welders, plumbers, and garbage collectors. women also study science and mathematics. women do have self-agency, hence the movement for pay equity.
lumberjack_jeff
(33,224 posts)But that's not what the OP is about.
noiretextatique
(27,275 posts)i am a female accountant who is routinely paid less than males with comparable experience. it is about cultural assumptions and attitudes about the value/worth of male and female workers.
noiretextatique
(27,275 posts)and I still make less than males with comparable skills, experience, and education. I don't need to be a skilled laborer to make a decent salary, but I still face gender discrimination. it is still a big problem.
RKP5637
(67,104 posts)
Walk away
(9,494 posts)What are republican women waiting for? A Teabagger bill of enslavement of the female gender?
MADem
(135,425 posts)"Mister Mom" is still cute, not common.
Sometimes, the pay gaps happen because the woman takes a long break to caregive as a parent. Men as a rule don't take those long breaks and are ahead of the game in terms of snagging those promotions, sucking up and moving up.
That's not the only reason for pay disparity, but it is one of 'em.
BlancheSplanchnik
(20,219 posts)barely any votes. Barely any replies.
We even have our own contingent of deniers, and woman blamers; They rush to the defense of any other oppressed group and cause in support of the greater good.....BUT on this one subject, they are effectively spouting right wing ideology. Here. On DEMOCRATIC UNDERGROUND, for fucksake.
Here, in this community of people dedicated to intelligent discussion on how to make this country and this world better for ALL, would ANY OTHER flavor of systemic injustice meet with the same silence? Or knee-jerk defenses? 
Jeezus H. CHRIST, people.......
xmas74
(29,674 posts)Every time there's a thread about equality or any type of women's rights that poster is right in the middle, making claims about how basically "us womenfolk" don't deserve the same rights as men.
hfojvt
(37,573 posts)my argument is that from where I sit it looks like you already do have the same rights as men, and then some. And the statistic about 77 cents on the dollar is a steaming pile of doo doo that compares the prices of apples and cantaloupes and complains that cantaloupes cost 23% more than apples at the very same store!!
lumberjack_jeff
(33,224 posts)Did you have something to say about the topic, or is gossiping about other posters your only area of interest?
Skittles
(153,147 posts)have you ever heard someone imply you might get a bigger raise if you showed more leg? My guess: PROBABLY NOT! 
lumberjack_jeff
(33,224 posts)Last edited Wed Jun 13, 2012, 02:36 PM - Edit history (1)
I have been asked to show less leg though. Does that count? 
Seriously, a female sales manager once gave me clothing advice, and I'm unconvinced that her motivation was entirely professional.
Nevertheless, I bought the shirts and got the raise.
Skittles
(153,147 posts)he just thinks the menfolk DESERVE all they get and us wimminfolk - well, we just DON'T!!!
xmas74
(29,674 posts)He was like this before on the old DU and is still like this even now.
When we finally transferred over to the new DU I decided to no longer block posters, since everyone deserves a second chance. This thread reminded me of exactly why that poster was blocked before and why he just became the first person I've blocked on the new boards.
lumberjack_jeff
(33,224 posts)To each their own.
rational_democrat
(18 posts)"Young women in their 20s who don't have children, who are not married, are actually earning more than comparable young men," Hymowitz said.
Farrell said they're actually earning 117 percent more -- meaning women in that group earn 17 cents more on every dollar a man of the same age makes.
Read more: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704421104575463790770831192.html
spooky3
(34,438 posts)Pay equity studies typically control for things like occupation, industry, and education. If a study reported that middle-aged women with kids made less than middle-aged men with kids, the first thing someone would ask is whether they had the same jobs, education, experience, etc., all of which reduce the gap, and s/he would point out that it is misleading not to report those "legitimate" factors that could account for pay differences. So let's make sure we are doing the same thing here.
In this case, even the WSJ summary points out that this group of young women are better educated than the comparison group of young, unmarried, childfree men. That alone could account for the pay difference in this group.
"While these particular women earn more than their male peers, women on the whole haven't reached equal status in any particular job or education level. For instance, women with a bachelor's degree had median earnings of $39,571 between 2006 and 2008, compared with $59,079 for men at the same education level, according to the Census."
So this article has a misleading headline, of course, and it actually still points out that women are paid significantly less than there male counterparts.
Igel
(35,300 posts)They're professors, Tier 1 university.
N was in the private sector. She fell 5 years behind her husband when he worked and she quit to stay at home with children. I know women who put their kids in daycare at 6 weeks. She didn't. Her choice. She decided to go back to work so she could divorce her husband.
N had her PhD, so decided to get a job as a professor. She has 10 years' seniority now. Her 9-month salary is average for faculty with 10 years' service in her college. She's got her obligatory steps (salary increases for service), she's got the average or slightly above average merit increases. Yet her average annual salary is below the average annual male salary. She'd have to have about 10 years' more seniority to hit the average for a male with 10 years' service.
If you're in engineering and hard sciences--rarely in other fields--you get extramural grants. They pay for your summer 3 months' salary. The university doesn't. Those depts are mostly staffed by men. One of the two males in her dept, adding salt to the wound, applied for and got a multi-year extramural grant. His salary includes the summer 9ths.
Where I teach high school the women's average salary is slightly below the average man's salary. The men are concentrated in coaching, in physical sciences, in math. Rare in language, life sciences, English. (A fair number in history.) Physical sciences, math, coaching have stipends. Biology doesn't. SpEd is mostly female--and they have a stipend, but it's smaller than the other stipends. This is based on availability of teachers in those fields. Not enough SpEd teachers, but more of those than math or physical science. (Coaching just requires longer hours, so they get additional pay.)
Educational attainment isn't enough. It matters what field it's in. How long is taken off for maternity leave, if any. How aggressively other opportunities are pursued.
Choices matter, even if the consequences aren't known. I've made a lot of choices that reduced my earnings over the years and my income as a male my age with my education is many $1000s lower than it should be. But it's because of my choices. I didn't know what the effects would be 20 years later, but there you have it.
spooky3
(34,438 posts)HiPointDem
(20,729 posts)what kind of work do they do? did they take leave to have kids, or go back to get their degree after their kids were school-age, etc?
what no one can tell me is how, since it's *illegal* to pay women less for the same work if they have the same experience & qualifications, how this "significant" discrimination happens?
and why aren't there tons of lawsuits about it?
lumberjack_jeff
(33,224 posts)If male privilege were to blame for oppression posited by the OP, women wouldn't be better educated or make more money prior to family life, right?
The fact that women are better educated doesn't explain away the pay disparity. In fact, it undermines the point of the OP.
spooky3
(34,438 posts)it doesn't support your point of view, nor does the vast majority of carefully controlled research.
spooky3
(34,438 posts)And there are a LOT of them. It's annoying that statements like this, which are absolutely correct in describing the negative impact on families, seem to ignore the huge number of women simply because they are living in traditional families.
If Democrats want this demographic group to come out to vote for them (as they frequently say they do), one thing they might want to stop doing is ignoring this group and their concerns--or appearing to do so--even while being supportive of legislation that would help many women and men.
joeglow3
(6,228 posts)The issue is NOT pay, but rather the ability of women to assume higher level positions. At least, that is what these same politicians said when it was exposed that pay for their employees mirrored this trend:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/1002724594
But, I guess they have to play games to gin up support for a manufactured controversy. Too bad they are doing dick about dealing with the real problem: getting women into higher positions.
uponit7771
(90,335 posts)...add in length of hair. Length of high heals or some other stupid sexist bastard KKKons want to through in as a control then the number goes down to 5% overall but as low as 66% towards a group of trades.
HiPointDem
(20,729 posts)workers.
a full-time employee is defined by the bureau of labor statistics as 35 or more hours/week.
thus a full-time worker could be working 35 hours, or 60.
the 77% figure comes from a study which just compares median wages of male and female workers defined as "full-time". there's no attempt to compare hours to hours -- or anything else, such as type of job, years of experience, etc.
lumberjack_jeff
(33,224 posts)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, men spend fewer years out of the workforce.
The amount of time spent in the labor force also differs by sex, with women at every educational level
and at every age spending fewer weeks in the labor force than men. Men with less than a high school
diploma spent 77 percent of weeks employed from age 18 to age 40. These men also spent 9 percent of
weeks unemployed. By comparison, women with less than a high school diploma spent just 48 percent of
weeks employed and 6 percent of weeks unemployed from age 18 to age 40. Women without a high school
diploma spent nearly as much time out of the labor force (46 percent of weeks) as they did employed (48
percent of weeks). The differences between men and women in labor force attachment were much smaller
among those with a bachelor’s degree or more education, but men still spent a larger proportion of weeks
employed than did women (85 versus 78 percent).
Labor force attachment is related to age for both men and women, with the percent of weeks employed
increasing and the percent of weeks unemployed or not in the labor force falling as individuals grow older.
From ages 18 to 21, men spent 22 percent of weeks out of the labor force and women spent 34 percent of
weeks out of the labor force. This age range is a period when large proportions of men and women attend
college or receive vocational training and, as a result, they spend less time in the labor force than they eventually
will. Indeed, from ages 36 to 40, these men spent only 6 percent of weeks out of the labor force and
women spent 21 percent of weeks out of the labor force. (See table 4.)
Like men, women were more likely to participate in the labor force as they aged, but the reduction in
the percent of weeks spent out of the labor force was much smaller among women than among men. After
age 21, women spent, on average, two and a half to four times as many weeks out of the labor force as men
of their same generation. Women in the age groups 22 to 25 and 26 to 30 each spent 26 percent of weeks
out of the labor force. Women ages 31 to 35 spent 24 percent of weeks out of the labor force and women
ages 36 to 40 spent 21 percent of weeks out of the labor force.
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
The disparity is a reflection of people's choices. Either we believe in choice or we do not.
In my opinion, this is an issue that alienates married women and men from our party. Married women vote more like men than single women because their families are primarily dependent on his wages and are repelled by rhetoric that threatens it.
jp11
(2,104 posts)Answers many questions as to what is behind the numbers.
Skittles
(153,147 posts)women routinely are paid less even when there is no disparity - I know because more than once I have found that the guys I am training made more than me - and I have NEVER been out of the workforce since I was a teenager. I have YET to find a woman who made more.
Scout
(8,624 posts)lumberjack_jeff
(33,224 posts)If the guys you are training in your job who have less experience have a higher hourly wage, then you should call a lawyer.
Skittles
(153,147 posts)you are a HOOT
xmas74
(29,674 posts)Good luck getting an attorney to take on that case.
I know I personally have been in situations where, as a woman, I trained men with little to no experience. What did I train them to do? To become my boss, because that was "my job". Refuse to do so and you'll find yourself without a job. Talk to an attorney and you'll find yourself without a job, having been released on some made up excuse. (Those of us in at-will states don't even need an excuse for termination.)
Some posters just don't get it while others refuse to admit it. We've both been around here long enough to see far too much of it.
Skittles
(153,147 posts)xmas74
(29,674 posts)Doesn't seem fair, does it?
Of course, this can't possibly be real, according to some posters here.
Skittles
(153,147 posts)these guys who deny the sexism in pay will often say we should FILE SUIT for our personal experiences! Now here's the question!
WHAT DO YOU THINK those guys think of women who DO file discrimination suits???
A) They are INCREDIBLY BRAVE WOMEN who deserve JUSTICE
or
B) They are WHINY BITCHES!!!
HiPointDem
(20,729 posts)who thought you were a whiny bitch?
other people filed & won. since you say you have been discriminated against at every job you've ever held, i can't imagine why you didn't at some point take it to court.
Skittles
(153,147 posts)HiPointDem
(20,729 posts)doctors but apparently won't put yourself on the line to defend your own interests.
if there's wage discrimination it's illegal, and has been since 1963. many cases have gone to court since then.
The Equal Pay Act prohibits an employer from discriminating between male and female employees by paying lower wage rates to employees of one sex than to the other for work which requires equal skill, effort and responsibility, and which is performed under similar work conditions. Some segments of American industry continue to operate on the outmoded belief that a man, based upon his role in society, should be paid more than a woman, even though the woman may be performing the same duties.... Burr & Smith, L.L.P. is experienced litigating multiparty cases under this Act. If you are concerned you are not receiving the pay to which you are entitled, contact us for a consultation.
http://www.burrandsmithlaw.com/cases_equal.htm
Skittles
(153,147 posts)I am weary and will leave this to others who live in the REAL WORLD
HiPointDem
(20,729 posts)heavy research work.
Skittles
(153,147 posts)Last edited Thu Jun 14, 2012, 12:45 AM - Edit history (1)
in a male-dominated field so I KNOW what goes on with compensation. THAT MAKES ME WEARY. Now GOODBYE!!!!
HiPointDem
(20,729 posts)xmas74
(29,674 posts)Do I win a prize? 
chervilant
(8,267 posts)He's just articulating what many men believe in their efforts to avoid the cognitive dissonance commensurate with acknowledging that the vast majority of men support a sexist socio-cultural construct called patriarchy.
Being male anywhere on this planet is a huge advantage.
The power imbalance inherent in the social construct we've labeled 'patriarchy' is damaging to our entire species. How can we expect a 'dominant' gender to respect a 'submissive' gender, when 'power over' is glorified? We women are considered less than because we have a 'v' instead of a 'p'! How absurd!
Some great resources for any who wish to change this oppressive socio-cultural reality:
The Mermaid and the Minotaur: Sexual Arrangements and Human Malaise by Dorothy Dinnerstein.
Beyond Power: On Women, Men and Morals by Marilyn French.
The War Against Women by Marilyn French.
(BTW, I know I've posted this before. However, I've noticed that more of the misogynists on DU have been working hard to deny their sexism...)
spooky3
(34,438 posts)They control for all those "choices" that you describe--and also point out that many pay studies count as "choices" factors that are also at least partially influenced by discrimination, such as occupation and industry.
Anecdotes, descriptive statistics and studies that do not control important variables are of absolutely no use whatsoever in sorting out this issue.
If you are genuinely interested in truth, read the vast body of empirical research on pay setting.
lumberjack_jeff
(33,224 posts)How much of the 23 cents were consequences of choice?
I skimmed her bibliography, and can't find any articles relevant to the topic which use data from this century.
I do know that in 2007 the AAUW studied the issue and (in the fine print) found that 5% of the pay gap can't be explained through the obvious choice factors (career, hours, experience).
In what way is one's choice of career influenced by discrimination?
Major Nikon
(36,827 posts)Just looking at the abstract (I'm not going to pay to get the study you cited), it's hard to tell how much, if any, choice factored into their equation.
This report sums up many of the latest studies (as well as the one you mentioned):
http://www.stlouisfed.org/publications/re/articles/?id=2160
One thing interesting I found there is the relevance of total compensation vs just wages or salary.
HiPointDem
(20,729 posts)female earnings.
she concludes that american women probably experience *less* discrimination than women in comparable countries, but since income is more unequally divided in the us (& more women than men are found in lower-income jobs in every country), the male-female wage gap is wider in the us than in those countries -- an artifact of the greater inequality in the distribution of income in the us.
"We conclude that, compared to women in the other
countries, U.S. women are better qualified relative to men and/or encounter less discrimination.
The mediocre ranking of the U.S. gender ratio in the face of these favorable gender specific
factors is a consequence of the higher level of wage inequality in the United States, which places
a much higher penalty on being below average in the wage distribution."
she also says:
"In addition, at least some of the remaining pay gap is surely tied to the gender division of
labor in the home, both directly through its effect on women's labor force attachment and
indirectly through its impact on the strength of statistical discrimination against women."
which is what the people critiquing the "77%" and "23%" figures have been saying as well, to boos & hisses from the supposed feminists.
maybe the critiquers know the research better than you think.
here's another of doctor blau's papers (1988): she's talking about the narrowing of the gender gap among low & middle wage workers that occurred 1979-1988:
Further decompositions of the wage effects of changes in characteristics
over the period for each skill group separately by sex (results not shown)
show that the reduction in gender differences in industry and union status
at the bottom and middle was largely due to a deterioration in men's
status rather than an improvement in women's status.
In the low-skill group, the largest effect was for deunionization, which lowered men's
wages by 0.051 log points compared to a drop of 0.029 points for women.
Men's industrial distribution also changed adversely, lowering their wages
by 0.028 log points, while women's changed by less, decreasing their
wages by 0.016.
Trends were similar in the middle-skill group, although
there deunionization played the major role, lowering men's wages by
0.046 log points compared to a decrease of only 0.019 log points for
women.
In contrast, men at the top actually upgraded their industrial
distribution, raising their wages by 0.023 log points, while changes in
women's industrial distribution raised their wages only very slightly
(0.004 log points).
http://aysps.gsu.edu/isp/files/ISP_SUMMER_SCHOOL_2008_CURRIE_Swimming_Upstream.pdf
"industrial distribution" refers to whether people tend to be broadly spread out among various industries (e.g. education, hospitality, finance, manufacturing, etc.) or concentrated in only a few (often low wage).
Skittles
(153,147 posts)Scout
(8,624 posts)HiPointDem
(20,729 posts)Skittles
(153,147 posts)you DO realize the NBC article refers to RESEARCH, don't you?
HiPointDem
(20,729 posts)misrepresent it too often.
if you're so well-versed in the research, it's easy enough to link it.
btw, the $12K gap is about 6%. not 23%.
Skittles
(153,147 posts)And over the course of their careers, she added, women in this study will end up earning $350,000 less than men doing the same type of work.
HiPointDem
(20,729 posts)GAP!!! WOMEN ONLY MAKE 77% OF WHAT MEN DO!!" is that the scare headline is misleading & basically propagandistic, yes, my main concern is that it's 6%, not 23%.
And to be perfectly honest, I'm not that concerned with people who make $167K. If they're smart enough to get through medical school, they ought to be smart enough to challenge whoever it is that's discriminating against them.
This hypothetical woman makes close to $350K every two years. I'm more concerned with people who won't make $350K IN TOTAL even after working full-time for 15 or 20 years.
Skittles
(153,147 posts)*OVER AND OUT*
HiPointDem
(20,729 posts)Last edited Wed Jun 13, 2012, 05:31 AM - Edit history (1)
actually, that attitude is one of the very things that turns low & middle-income women off feminism -- the perception that it's all about upper-class women -- which it sometimes is.
Major Nikon
(36,827 posts)The problem I have with articles like the one in the OP is they assume that ALL of the income disparity is due to illegal discrimination which is simply complete bullshit and not within a cab ride of reality.
The simple fact is that on average women in our society take on a greater responsibility when it comes to family issues than men do. Jeff listed several sociological conditions that contribute to income disparity. There are many more. It may surprise you to know that when you compare women to men where both groups have never been married or had kids, women actually make more than men.
None of this means there isn't illegal discrimination going on, which is still a significant problem. But posting statistics like "women make 77% less than men" only serves the cause of those who seek to mislead.
MightyOkie
(68 posts)There was a debate over this very issue about one month ago between some talking heads on cable. IIRC, discrimination accounted for roughly 5-10% of the disparity.
Major Nikon
(36,827 posts)Some studies suggest it's higher. According to wiki, the estimate seems to be between 5-7%, but keep in mind this is really just a guess because all they are doing is factoring out the sociological factors they can account for, and then tallying up what remains. Whatever the number is, it's almost certainly very low. When women who have never had children or have been married make significantly more than men in the same situation, it leads you to believe at the very least children and marriage account for a significant part of the disparity.
SickOfTheOnePct
(7,290 posts)And from everything I've seen, it appears to be calculated based on the median annual income for women divided by the median annual income for men (2010 Census figures). I'll try to find the article again and link to it, but if that's truly the calculation, then it would seem that much of the gap could be attributed to women dominating the lower-income, service-type jobs, which often mean not only lower pay, but fewer hours.
Unless I'm misunderstanding it, that doesn't equate to 77% of the pay for the exact same work, but perhaps I'm missing something major.
Major Nikon
(36,827 posts)No effort is made to correct for any sociological perspectives. Articles like the one referenced in the OP make use of the public's basic ignorance of those factors and suggest that all or most of the difference is attributable to illegal discrimination which isn't within a cab ride of reality. I fully support the Paycheck Fairness Act, but I think the information that's being propagated by some who support the law is pretty close to pure bullshit.
lumberjack_jeff
(33,224 posts)HiPointDem
(20,729 posts)defined as "full-time" in the census data.
there are all sorts of reasons that's not a valid comparison if you're trying to assert discrimination.
4th law of robotics
(6,801 posts)what is causing that is some combination of discrimination, faults in the model, sampling error, and factors that are not easily quantified.
Every model has some error value associated with it. And 5% isn't that high.
Major Nikon
(36,827 posts)http://www.consad.com/content/reports/Gender%20Wage%20Gap%20Final%20Report.pdf
uponit7771
(90,335 posts)...difference to the point.
This is like saying blacks and Hispanics are CHOOSING to live in areas were the schools are horrible and leaving out all the discrimination from the past.
Major Nikon
(36,827 posts)So you're saying everyone who chooses better benefits vs higher pay is wrong?
So you're saying everyone who chooses to have children vs pursuing a career is wrong?
So you're saying everyone who chooses lower pay vs longer commuting time is wrong?
So you're saying everyone who chooses lower pay vs a riskier job is wrong?
So you're saying everyone who chooses lower pay vs more required travel is wrong?
So you're saying everyone who chooses lower pay vs longer hours is wrong?
I kinda like your game and can go on if you wish.
Just sayin'
4th law of robotics
(6,801 posts)ie; it's caused by choices men and women make, then is it discrimination that pay rates are slightly different?
If I choose to work 40 hours a week and my coworker (in the same job, same seniority, same education, same everything else) chooses to work 60 hours a week is it discrimination when I take home less money? We're doing the same job, right?
lumberjack_jeff
(33,224 posts)HiPointDem
(20,729 posts)so overblown.
HiPointDem
(20,729 posts)uponit7771
(90,335 posts)Your control factors of time on job have been debunked over and over again
http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2012-04-18/features/sns-rt-us-wages-gender-gapbre83g1ci-20120417_1_gender-wage-gap-hispanic-women-women-s-policy-research
http://www.mediaite.com/tv/cnn-fact-checks-rachel-maddow-alex-castellanos-feud-over-gender-pay-gap-determines-maddow-right/
Given a true apples to apples women..STILL>..STILL make less
As an aggregate women make less
rMoneys religion doesn't allow him to treat women as equal bread winners
Major Nikon
(36,827 posts)It's a nice touch to an ad hominem/personal attack.
Just sayin'
uponit7771
(90,335 posts)Skittles
(153,147 posts) lumberjack_jeff
(33,224 posts)When women marry, their large preference for democrats ends. I think this is a phenomenon worth examining. What's your alternate explanation and what does that explanation suggest for an action plan?
It may seem sensible to some here to write off men, but writing off men and half of women, is frankly stupid.
lumberjack_jeff
(33,224 posts)A "Full time" employee is someone who ordinarily works more than 35 hours weekly. Men full time workers work significantly more hours than women, and anyone with the title "study director" would know this.
Given that the first quote from the IWPR spokeswoman is such an easily proven lie, there's little point reading the rest.
But I read the second link. Here's the money quote at the bottom of the article.
However, Sylvester says that if you control for all factors, the pay gap shrinks to approximately 5 cents more for men than for women. “It is still there, it is still real and the truth is men make more than women,” Sylvester concluded.
uponit7771
(90,335 posts)..and that's opposite of your position.
Thx
lumberjack_jeff
(33,224 posts)5% is the gap which isn't explained by obvious choice factors such as hours, careers or experience.
Factors such as men's willingness to negotiate for salary, and the motivations inherent in the family's primary dependence on his salary, haven't been quantified.
No more than 5% of the wage gap can possibly be attributed to bias, and the actual number is undoubtedly less.
Given that single women in good job markets make significantly more than men, the number could be less than zero. Whatever factors enabled them to make more money as single women doesn't go away, despite their subsequent choice to marry and have children.
4th law of robotics
(6,801 posts)a wage gap that exists after all relevant factors influencing pay have been accounted for is.
You are arguing the former we're trying to point out that you should be looking at the latter.
lumberjack_jeff
(33,224 posts)Hours, jobs and experience are the low hanging fruit. They're the easy ones.
Now quantify the value of negotiation, willingness to reject substandard offers and the motivation which comes from knowing that your family is dependent on your income.
4th law of robotics
(6,801 posts)negotiation, aggressiveness in dealing with management, and probably a dozen other factors that are, as you say not easily quantified, are what make up the 5 or so percent difference remaining after account for easily quantified factors like years on the job.
So the wage gap is largely just a matter of choice: women tend to choose different careers, different career paths, different negotiating strategies, different XYZ.
But that's not such an inflammatory headline.
HiPointDem
(20,729 posts)uponit7771
(90,335 posts)because you want to!
You can control work hours to work hours and women still make less with same education...
You can't cherry pick controls and then say the outcome isn't true...
And again, you've already claimed that there IS a gap whether it be all controls or whether it be some
Regards
lumberjack_jeff
(33,224 posts)Skittles
(153,147 posts)and no doubt a great portion of the other 4/5 can be attributed to sexism too!!!!
lumberjack_jeff
(33,224 posts)4/5 of my headache can be attributed to an excess of bodily humors too... but not factually.
HiPointDem
(20,729 posts)over 34 hours, from 35 to 80.
who is likely to work more paid overtime, men or women?
DirkGently
(12,151 posts)
TygrBright
(20,756 posts)I think partly because my mother was so astonished, too. My grandmother was normally fairly optimistic in spite of a rock-bottom realistic nature.
However, having to work hard all through the Depression and well into the 1950s in sexist workplaces may have had its effect.
wearily,
Bright
Cerridwen
(13,254 posts)why do we keep a business model that rewards "men's" work and punishes "women's" work?
Go to the root of the issue.
By the way, since women give birth to and rear the future troops, ceos, presidents, leaders of the world, why isn't that paid work in a world that judges people by their paid work title, their credit rating and their bank account?
midnight
(26,624 posts)reward women and list their skills on the GDP!
HiPointDem
(20,729 posts)increasingly hard to come by.
workers at the chicken plant start at just over minimum. used to be way better money & benefits in meatpacking generally.
autoworkers on the "second tier" are starting at $14 now.
the business model is capitalism, which pits people against each other.
HiPointDem
(20,729 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.[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%[4]:2 and 7%...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Male%E2%80%93female_income_disparity_in_the_United_States
The statistic being touted is a crude comparison of all full-time workers by sex. It doesn't compare apples to apples. When that's done, the gap is <10%. The biggest fraction of that "23%" difference is difference in the kinds of jobs men & women take, difference in overtime rates, difference in work history/experience levels, with career gaps for child-rearing being a big factor.
People think stuff like this is going to win Obama the women's vote. I doubt it.
4th law of robotics
(6,801 posts)that would be hard to quantify in a study (unlike say years seniority) but could account for the 5% difference.
uponit7771
(90,335 posts)...money men get apples to apples is a great tell tale of the gender discrimination.
Do NOT eat the right wing BS...that's what they are pushing
lumberjack_jeff
(33,224 posts)4th law of robotics
(6,801 posts)the flaws have already been pointed out (lumping all "full time" workers together doesn't make any sense when full time can be 35 to 80+ hours per week). So that isn't true.
B) women aren't "pushing for the same money men get". Bosses wouldn't give nearly as many raises if employees didn't demand them. They don't wake up some morning and say "you know that Johnson guy has been working pretty hard, and he has a Penis! So I will give him a raise for his good work, but mostly for his penis" Men who are afraid to ask for raises get the same treatment as women who are afraid to ask for raises. There just happen to be more of the latter than the former, by percentage.
Skittles
(153,147 posts)NOT "ASSERTIVE"
HiPointDem
(20,729 posts)you say you've been discriminated against in every job you've ever had, but you're not willing to take it to court or push for a raise because you might be called bad names?
4th law of robotics
(6,801 posts)even if it means the loss of material wealth?
Sounds like another gender based difference that would lead to differences in income.
Picture a CEO. Doesn't matter which one.
Then try to imagine that CEO saying "wait, I shouldn't do this, sure it would make me lot's of money but people may not like me as much if I do it . . . "
Skittles
(153,147 posts)at ALL
4th law of robotics
(6,801 posts)is that the answer is always the same: sexism.
When you have a conclusion and you adjust the facts to fit it you do not have a scientific theory, you have elements of a religion.
Example: 50 years ago girls do worse in school than boys. Cause: the Patriarchy!
Today: boys do worse than girls in school. Cause: the Patriarchy!
When you can have completely different outcomes that all support the original hypothesis it's hard to take it serious.
Skittles
(153,147 posts)ASK the women in your life their experiences
HiPointDem
(20,729 posts)4th law of robotics
(6,801 posts)according to the statistics collected by the labor department the claim that women earn ~70% of what men do *for the same work* is not true.
And I think it is quite telling that you say "do some real life research" then define that as talking to some of your friends.
That kind of says exactly where you're coming from on this since you've rejected all actual research.
lumberjack_jeff
(33,224 posts)Married women vote more like men than like single women - much more likely to vote for Republicans.
Why? What possible reasons could they have for changing?
The first issue that drops onto my radar is this one. Rhetoric which attacks their family's primary source of income and dismisses it as "privilege" is repellent.
Skittles
(153,147 posts) uponit7771
(90,335 posts)...but you can't fudge the fact.
That's what conservatives are trying to do and it's bullshit
HiPointDem
(20,729 posts)attempt to determine:
1. if the workers are working in the same kind of jobs, percentage-wise
2. if one sex works more overtime than another
3. if one sex is more likely to have gaps in their work history due to raising children or marriage.
4. other differences
it's not a comparison of apples to apples. saying "women get paid less period" is kind of silly, considering that equal pay for equal work has been the law of the land since 1963.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equal_Pay_Act_of_1963
if there's so much discrimination against women, where are the lawsuits?
libtodeath
(2,888 posts)chervilant
(8,267 posts)I want my $430,000.
chervilant
(8,267 posts)- by Sor Juana Inez de la Cruz 1651-1695
Silly, you men-so very adept
at wrongly faulting womankind,
not seeing you're alone to blame
for faults you plant in woman's mind.
After you've won by urgent plea
the right to tarnish her good name,
you still expect her to behave—
you, that coaxed her into shame.
You batter her resistance down
and then, all righteousness, proclaim
that feminine frivolity,
not your persistence, is to blame.
When it comes to bravely posturing,
your witlessness must take the prize:
you're the child that makes a bogeyman,
and then recoils in fear and cries.
Presumptuous beyond belief,
you'd have the woman you pursue
be Thais when you're courting her,
Lucretia once she falls to you.
For plain default of common sense,
could any action be so queer
as oneself to cloud the mirror,
then complain that it's not clear?
Whether you're favored or disdained,
nothing can leave you satisfied.
You whimper if you're turned away,
you sneer if you've been gratified.
With you, no woman can hope to score;
whichever way, she's bound to lose;
spurning you, she's ungrateful—
succumbing, you call her lewd.
Your folly is always the same:
you apply a single rule
to the one you accuse of looseness
and the one you brand as cruel.
What happy mean could there be
for the woman who catches your eye,
if, unresponsive, she offends,
yet whose complaisance you decry?
Still, whether it's torment or anger—
and both ways you've yourselves to blame—
God bless the woman who won't have you,
no matter how loud you complain.
It's your persistent entreaties
that change her from timid to bold.
Having made her thereby naughty,
you would have her good as gold.
So where does the greater guilt lie
for a passion that should not be:
with the man who pleads out of baseness
or the woman debased by his plea?
Or which is more to be blamed—
though both will have cause for chagrin:
the woman who sins for money
or the man who pays money to sin?
So why are you men all so stunned
at the thought you're all guilty alike?
Either like them for what you've made them
or make of them what you can like.
If you'd give up pursuing them,
you'd discover, without a doubt,
you've a stronger case to make
against those who seek you out.
I well know what powerful arms
you wield in pressing for evil:
your arrogance is allied
with the world, the flesh, and the devil!
lumberjack_jeff
(33,224 posts)"The greatest thing about this man is he's steady. You know where he stands. He believes the same thing Wednesday that he believed on Monday, no matter what happened Tuesday. Events can change; this man's beliefs never will."
Skittles
(153,147 posts)chervilant
(8,267 posts)Change is inevitable, and always a wonderful opportunity, except for those who fear it or reject it.
(Colbert was NOT complementing Bush when he made this now infamous speech.)
lumberjack_jeff
(33,224 posts)chervilant
(8,267 posts)that's your big mistake right there. I did not post this poem "in defense of the factual basis of the OP." I posted it to help all the sexists on DU understand how demeaning is their sexism.
Please, don't bother to respond, as I don't see posts from people on my ignore list.
lumberjack_jeff
(33,224 posts)Facts that don't fit prejudices are apparently sexism.
As far as "not bothering" goes, those who ignore inconvenient facts are by definition willfully ignorant.
Here's the thing. Announcing to the world that I'm on your ignore list assumes that I'm vulnerable to your disapproval. Telling you facts assumes that you're vulnerable to reality. Both are false.
4th law of robotics
(6,801 posts)perhaps we should start a coping group to deal with this rejection?
4th law of robotics
(6,801 posts)to your case than a poem.
Just a thought.
Xithras
(16,191 posts)With most professional jobs, wages are negotiated. I've hired MANY people over the years, and the process usually goes something like this: We offer a base pay and benefits package. A potential hire counters, if it's reasonable and the applicant is strong, we may accept, or we may counter again (less benefits in exchange for higher pay, for example). Either way, the pay is negotiated.
I've personally interviewed hundreds of people for dozens positions over the past 20 years in the software development field, including a 10 year stretch where I owned my own consulting firm and had up to 18 employees on payroll. In that time, I'd say that 75% of my prospective male hires ended up with salaries they'd negotiated. Less than a quarter simply took the starting offer. I've also had numerous applicants walk away from jobs AFTER they'd been offered because we couldn't meet their salary demands.
On the other hand, I can probably count the number of WOMEN who negotiated their salaries on my fingers, and I've NEVER had a woman walk away from a job offer over pay. With relatively few exceptions, women tend to take the starting offer without much discussion.
Raises are a similar deal. I've lost track of the number of times I've had a male employee walk into my office and say, "Hey, I like working here, but Company X is offering me $$$, and I'm going to have to resign if you can't match it." I've had male employees quit when I wouldn't offer the raise, and have handed out many raises to quality male workers in order to keep them on staff.
I've had exactly ONE woman do that while working for me. She was a brilliant app designer and got her raise. Last I heard, she's working for Google nowadays and is making about five times what I paid her...and she's worth every penny. I've never had another female employee, before or since, leverage a raise like that. The rest of the female employees under my supervision were content to simply accept their percentage-based annual post-evaluation raises.
I'm not even going to speculate as to the social or psychological reasons behind this, but it has been my experience that there is a very real difference between the way men and women approach compensation and how aggressive they are at pursuing additional compensation. In my own company, ALL hires received the same starting offers, and everyone was offered the same annual percentage based raises after their reviews. In spite of this, most of my male employees ended up making more than their female counterparts.
It really is a thorny problem, and there's no simple solution for it. You can't give the entire company a raise every time one employee demands one, and yet it's often important to respond to these raise demands to keep quality employees from leaving. This system favors those who are willing to demand more money, and more of those workers tend to be men.
treestar
(82,383 posts)And less inclined to be aggressive?
Sex discrimination - fear that coming from a woman it will seem "too aggressive" and result in her being dismissed.
Same as women not "choosing" the higher paying jobs - aren't they more likely to encounter discouragement and discrimination? That's where this problem lies.
La Lioness Priyanka
(53,866 posts)face backlash when they are as aggressive as men. this might be one of the reasons they don't negotiate aggressively.
the second could just be that we don't encourage/teach women to negotiate salaries the way we teach men too.
Xithras
(16,191 posts)Personally, I've never met a single manager or HR person who is happy paying men more than women. In fact, I've known several male managers who have offered raises to female employees without them asking, simply because the managers were unhappy with the accumulated pay disparity that the women were getting. While I'm sure that there are some managers who would be put off by women asking for more money, most wouldn't. This isn't the 1960's.
Remember, we're not talking about ACTING aggressively (which does put some men off), but pursuing your goals aggressively (which very few men have a problem with). Most men are actually pretty friendly when they ask for a raise ("I'd love to keep working here, but I have to look at what's best for my family...is there anything we can work out to match this offer?"
It's not about being bossy or aggressive, but is about understanding your value to your employer and being willing to ask for what you're worth. I've wondered myself whether this is a skill we're teaching young women, but as a man, I'm not really in a position to "educate" female employees without coming off as patronizing. You can bet that I've taught my own daughter to understand her value and to be willing to stand up for herself. I've overseen men and women working side by side at the same job, where the man was making $25k a year more than the woman, and I don't ever want my daughter to be that woman.
I do think that risk taking behaviors may play a role too. Walking into your bosses office and demanding a raise is an inherently risky behavior. Best case scenario is that you get a raise. Worst case scenario is that you get fired. Even if you don't get fired, your boss now knows that you're unhappy and looking elsewhere for work, which could have serious negative consequences for your continued employment. Even demanding too much pay at the time you're hired can be risky...if the company offers $100k a year, you demand $130k, and you negotiate it to $110k and an extra two weeks of vacation, your new boss will be acutely aware that he's paying you $20k a year less than you really wanted. Again, there's a risk that your boss may not trust you fully, fearing that you'll bolt when a better paying offer comes along.
Studies support the idea that men tend to be more willing to take risks when it comes to finances, which includes gambling with their jobs for more money. The question is whether we should be teaching young women to take more risks, or young men to take less.
La Lioness Priyanka
(53,866 posts)you raise some very interesting points.
lumberjack_jeff
(33,224 posts)The willingness to walk into the boss' office and ask for a raise is an independent and arguably antisocial act.
In my experience, the women who do this face more disapproval and retribution from their female peers than the boss.
treestar
(82,383 posts)And their confidence in that. A woman is more likely to think her value is lower and thus not to take that risk. The reason for that runs the gamut from how she is treated personally to how she views society as valuing her.
lumberjack_jeff
(33,224 posts)If I ask for a raise because I think I'm worth "X" while my coworker doesn't because she thinks she's worth ".77X", how should a business respond?
treestar
(82,383 posts)It's a societal problem across the board, not just businesses. People, some of them women themselves, don't think of women as equal. It may have improved over time but obviously still exists.
noiretextatique
(27,275 posts)it's really amazing to me that people don't grasp this. it's very similar to denial about racism, and given how much change we've experienced as a culture in the past 50 or so years, it's sad that some people refuse to acknowledge it.
4th law of robotics
(6,801 posts)as I don't remember being "taught" any of that.
Major Nikon
(36,827 posts)It requires employers to disclose certain information regarding pay, which strengthens the bargaining position of employees and makes illegal discrimination harder to conceal.
Sen. Walter Sobchak
(8,692 posts)After interviewing two finalists, we ultimately decided to make offers to both. The offer to the female candidate was actually higher reflecting that if she takes this position she is walking away from stock options offered by her present employer.
The male candidate came back and asked for about $8000 more a year and financial assistance in completing his MBA - both non-issues.
The female candidate came back with a whole list of requests, but didn't even bring up the salary in the offer. She wanted assurances she wouldn't have to share hotel rooms or that she would be expected to drive in strange cities, she wanted to use her iPhone instead of a Blackberry and be reimbursed for it, she wanted her sports club dues covered under the fitness plan and a few other things, some a little eccentric but only two of them were out of the question and would have been impossible to accommodate.
Both ultimately accepted.
Amimnoch
(4,558 posts)Much of the focus throughout the thread is focused on businesses, hiring practices, and promotion practices. While I've no doubt from the evidence given there's disparity in those areas, the root cause goes much deeper, and when you sit back and look at our culture as a whole new picture is observed.
Even the best HR hiring practices, goals, and policies will not help narrow these gaps as long as our culture continues to "train" men and women to be different from the earliest stages of childhood development.
Ever heard of Police officer and firefighter Barbie? Surprisingly it actually has existed. Never really sold, but it has existed. Even so, you could hardly tell that Police Officer Barbie was a police officer, as she looked like a model wearing a cute little pencil skirt, and matching blue stylish peasant blouse.
How about Home-making GI Joe? Really, just with the toys provided, before we even have a gender identity, the "proper roles" for genders are being instilled into the youth.
From our earliest years of development in our current culture.. Females and males are treated differently. Have a completely different range of toys. Are encouraged to play in ways that are "gender appropriate".
By adolescence that treatment disparity grows even greater with boys tending to get pushed towards competitive sports activities, and girls are encouraged through cultural subtleties to "play house". While with time, the availability of competitive sports has been made more accessibly to young females, it generally doesn't get NEAR the same community support as the counterpart male sports.
Until we, as a culture, stop training our children to be different in their youth, we won't see much more change with them as they reach adulthood.
Amimnoch
(4,558 posts)
When we start reducing the differences in the way we treat our male and female children, we'll see much more of a difference in the way they are treated as adults.
chervilant
(8,267 posts)I think you would appreciate Dorothy Dinnerstein's The Mermaid and the Minotaur.
Major Nikon
(36,827 posts)
Skittles
(153,147 posts)but not NEARLY as much as is believed by sexist assholes
4th law of robotics
(6,801 posts)in graduation rates?
In other words: why do you think it is that a young girl has such a better chance of graduating HS (and ultimately college) than a young boy?
redqueen
(115,103 posts)Start another thread, eh?
4th law of robotics
(6,801 posts)to get an understanding of how this person (and I guess you as well) think about these issues.
Every discrepancy between men and women where women get the worse end of the deal is because of the dreaded patriarchy.
What then causes the other discrepancies, where men get the worst of it? I'm guessing again it's going to be the dreaded patriarchy for some reason.
Point being that this is now a matter of faith because no matter what the outcome the cause is always the same.
There are people who flat out refuse to believe that the women only make 70 cents on a dollar claim is a lie. When you account for all relevant factors that disparity drops to something like 95 cents on the dollar with the remaining difference being explained by other factors that are difficult to quantify (such as aggressiveness in negotiating salaries).
lumberjack_jeff
(33,224 posts)Given the opportunity, female monkeys play with dolls and male monkeys play with trucks.
Not making this up.
http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/the-scientific-fundamentalist/200804/why-do-boys-and-girls-prefer-different-toys
Skittles
(153,147 posts)too many people - and sadly, so called progressives, do not understand the systemic effect of sexism
redqueen
(115,103 posts)Didn't make it up, but I like it.
noiretextatique
(27,275 posts)we have evolved somewhat, but we have a long way to go. the culture still assumes that women have some option not to work, and men are still the "breadwinners." of course that hasn't be true ever, but the beliefs still persist.
Puzzledtraveller
(5,937 posts)All the working women in my sphere, including my girl friend earn more than me, and have so consistently.
