Equal Pay Day-4/20/04

[dryan]

How many DU women knew that yesterday was Equal Pay Day? The average American woman earns 77 cents for every dollar a man makes--therefore it took us until yesterday to earn as much as a man made for calendar year 2003-1/1 to 12/31/03!! At this rate, we will catch up by 2050! Who says we don't need the ERA!!???

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

1. I hope you're in favor of women being drafted

[libertad]

3. I'm not in favor of ANYONE being drafted.

Plus, it is irrelevant to the discussion of civilian pay disparity.

[Muddleoftheroad]

4. If there is a draft

Are you in favor of it being applied equally. And it does relate to a discussion of equal pay/equal work. Are women equal members of society or not?

[Skittles]

5. I hope you are in favor of women comprising at least 50% of Congress

so senseless carnage can be avoided.

[Muddleoftheroad]

7. If they can get elected

More power to them. But that's the funny thing about democracy.

[Skittles]

12. nothing funny about sexism

nt

[Muddleoftheroad]

14. It's funny to think one gender deserves automatic election

[catzies]

40. I've been waiting for a chance to rebut that from an old thread.

It's not about "automatic election," or "quotas."

It's about educating, recruiting, and training qualified women candidates who don't know how to run for office. There are many excellent women in the business world and the government and private sectors including nonprofits who want to lead, and can lead, but don't know how to connect to the resources out there that are available to them to enter a life of public service.

If women are on the ballot, then it is up to the electorate after that.

But the first hurdle is getting women to run.

When women run, women win.

[Muddleoftheroad]

63. If they are good candidates, then they should run

But where are they?

[catzies]

64. Some of us are actively looking, training, educating, leading...

...what are YOU doing?

Do you live in a small, or insular community? Are the same names on your ballot year after year? Does one party have a lock on your partisan offices? What about your nonpartisan ones?

Do you mean to tell me that you live where there are no women serving in any elected capacity whatsoever at any level?

I actively go out into my community and speak to different groups about this issue. I'm looking for more women to run all the time.

We raise awareness through our outreach activities and we find that women don't always know what to do and/or how to do it even when they've expressed a desire to do so.

We give them the tools, training, support, education and funding.

Who is "we?" NWPC. The National Women's Political Caucus. When women run, women win.

edit: grammar

[Muddleoftheroad]

65. Lobbying for candidates that support MY issues

If they happen to be women or men, that is fine with me.

I live in rural Virginia. The elected women are not many, that's for sure.

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

10. HA

Women are no better than men with bloodlust.

[Skittles]

13. how would we know?

you cannot take the radical, isolated examples of history either

[Muddleoftheroad]

15. Are you saying women are better than men?

[Skittles]

22. they are at least different

and we need to try something different

[Muddleoftheroad]

26. They are, thankfully, different

Vive la difference.

As for who we elect, to do so based on gender is silly.

[Skittles]

33. as I said

sexism is a terrible thing

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

17. If you don't know

and won't accept historical examples, how in the hell can you make your original assertion to begin with? You just ruined your own argument!!

[pmbryant]

20. This is about equal pay for equal work

I have no clue what some hypothetical draft -- one that hasn't existed for over 30 years and, despite the musings of a few isolated elected officials, is unlikely to exist again any time soon -- has anything to do with this issue.

--Peter

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

21. Equality is equality

I'll take 77 cents less per dollar if it means there's no chance I'm going to have to risk my life fighting in Bush's farcical Iraq war.

[pmbryant]

24. There is no draft

So, unless you volunteer, there is zero chance you will lose your life fighting in Iraq. (Unfortunately, "Bush's Folly" has no doubt increased all of our chances for dying in a terrorist attack in this country, and that risk is shared equally among men and women.)

You appear to be justifying real discrimination because of a "reverse discrimination" that does not exist. Is this what you really mean to say? Or am I misunderstanding your point?

--Peter

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

28. You are misunderstanding my point

If you're fighting for equality, you have to be willing to accept the consequences that come with it. If women want full equality, they should also fight to make themselves draft eligible. Maybe it's not fair that women make less money than men do, but it's not fair that I'm subject to having my life completely and suddenly altered by a false President who wishes to settle a score for his father while women are not subject to the same risk. Personally, I wish to see both the pay gap eradicated and women included in Selective Service because THAT would be equality. Life's a two way street, after all. I haven't heard a good reason why women should get paid less than men and I haven't heard a good reason women shouldn't be drafted.

And if you haven't noticed, we're inching closer and closer to activating the Selective Service, so this is a very relevant point.

[pmbryant]

37. Again, there is no draft

Now you appear to be saying that equality for women is fine and dandy, but not until your conditions are met (hypothetical ones at that).

And, even if one believes the hype about an upcoming draft, that same hype implies that women would be subject to this hypothetical draft. So this is a non-issue.

Perhaps all men over the age of 26 should also be paid 20% less, since they are also not subject to this risk?

--Peter

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

48. It's not a hypothetical at all

http://www.sss.gov

Go see for yourself.

I'm not arguing that equality for women is or should be conditional. Quite the contrary. I'm arguing that those who claim to fight for equality are being hypocritical in that they are only fighting for equality in terms of favorable issues (in this example, labor wages). Why isn't the NOW banging down doors to become eligible for the Selective Service? Wouldn't that make things more equal as well? Isn't that a discriminatory practice against women that is directly held by our government?

Are you arguing that women shouldn't be subject to the draft? If so, why not? Women and men are equal and there are thousands of exceptional female soldiers currently in our military.

[pmbryant]

52. That link proves that it is hypothetical

From the prominent notice on that web page:

Notwithstanding recent stories in the news media and on the Internet, Selective Service is not getting ready to conduct a draft for the U.S. Armed Forces -- either with a special skills or regular draft. Rather, the Agency remains prepared to manage a draft if and when the President and the Congress so direct. This responsibility has been ongoing since 1980 and is nothing new.

You wrote:

I'm not arguing that equality for women is or should be conditional. Quite the contrary. I'm arguing that those who claim to fight for equality are being hypocritical in that they are only fighting for equality in terms of favorable issues (in this example, labor wages). Why isn't the NOW banging down doors to become eligible for the Selective Service? Wouldn't that make things more equal as well? Isn't that a discriminatory practice against women that is directly held by our government?

The Selective Service is merely filling out a form at the post office. I think it is an incredibly minor issue.

From what I've heard, there are some bills for a future draft being circulated in Congress. Do these include women? That is what you should be looking into. From what I've heard (and I admit I haven't paid much attention to this), they include women. But anyway, no draft bill will ever get out of Congress in the near future. It would be political death to whoever pushed it. It ain't going to happen!

But congratulations on shifting the topic of this discussion away from pay equality and towards draft equality. I will no longer continue on this irrelevant tangent.

Are you arguing that women shouldn't be subject to the draft? If so, why not? Women and men are equal and there are thousands of exceptional female soldiers currently in our military.

Nowhere in any of my statements have I made any such comment, or even anything remotely close. Perhaps you have mistaken me for someone else.

--Peter

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

57. Since...

you do not desire to go forward despite your original desire to debate, I'm going to drop it here. If anyone else wishes to pick it up, I'm willing to continue.

[catzies]

61. Ok. I'll bite. If we're bringing back the draft, draft women too.

There. I said it and I meant it.

After all I'm sure we can agree that that's part of what equality is all about.

So, NOW can I have my dollar, instead of 77 cents? :)


on edit: changed 79 cents to 77.

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

62. absolutely!

If it were up to me anyway! I don't understand the disparity at all, to be fully honest. If I were an employer (which I'm not), a set job would have an attached salary, period. Seems pretty black and white to me!

On edit: I should note I'm all for making up the wage difference irrespective of the draft issue. It just pisses me off when people argue for equality when it's convenient but shy away when it's not.

[Vladimir]

59. I don't think they are being

hypocritical. Women have been opressed for centuries in very real and tangible ways. I for one do not blame them for campaining for equal pay while not sticking their necks out to fight in wars largely fought at the behest of male politicians.

I suspect we agree on the principle here - equality means equality across the board, and yes I agree that in theory women should be drafted too. But in practice, I think its unreasonable to ask fair-pay campaigners to campaign for the drafting of women.

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

60. I agree with you, except for one small part

not sticking their necks out to fight in wars largely fought at the behest of male politicians.

If we had a female president, would that change your opinion? Does that mean if a female president starts a war, only women should be fighting? I don't see how it's relevant who picks the fight and I also don't see why only one gender should pay the price just because another member of their gender made the decision. It's not like we're in a conspiracy. I know the point you're trying to make, but still...

I agree with everything else you said though.

[Vladimir]

67. Its important because its systemic

men have always been calling the shots politically. If there was largely equal representation, then it wouldn't matter who was president/defense secretary/whatever at any given time, but its always the men making the decisions. Until women have fair political representation, how can we ask them to shoulder an equal burden in combat?

Of course, if women want to fight, that's different, by all means be my guest.

V

[freetobegay]

2. At least you can marry a man that makes more than you!

eom

[Skittles]

6. are you implying you cannot marry a woman

who makes more than you?

[freetobegay]

8. I am implying I cannot marry the person I love!

Sometimes we get dealt shitty cards.
:cry:

[Skittles]

11. oh, I am sorry, I thought you were speaking in general terms

yes, gays get dumped on too. White straight men are an extremely threatened bunch, are they not?

[freetobegay]

16. Yes they are!

eom

[pmbryant]

9. Unfortuantely, I don't think the ERA would help by itself

We already have the Equal Pay Act, but that doesn't seem to have solved the problem by itself. Sex discrimination is too far ingrained in our society it seems.

What other ideas are there for bringing true equal pay for equal work to men and women in general?

--Peter

[Egalitarian]

18. Indoctrinate the women and poor into egalitarianism

IN the eyes of God and compassionate human beings we are all EQUAL and this should be reflected in our political power as well as pay. We must kill the concepts that falsely speak otherwise. Let the man or woman who views themselves as better be ostracized and forced to share a devasted little fenced in corner of the world with their likeminded brethen.

Seriously, women should raise hell about this, just as we poor should raise hell about our "near" fate to stay poor. OK, I admit a little less than humbly that I choose to be poor, choose not to be a greedy corporate father, choose to live to the best of my ability (which ain't always so great) to live rather simply I think.

[catzies]

42. Welcome to DU, Geia!

:hi:

I'm raising hell as best I can!

[pmbryant]

19. (ignore please)

Answered in the wrong place.

[Libertarialoon]

23. Many reasons

There are many reasons for the pay discrepancy. Sexism is certainly one in some cases, but not the primary one by a long shot. Many women leave the workforce to raise a family and return later. They cannot expect to receive pay increases when not in the workforce. Many women also choose to work part time to help raise a family. Do you advocate paying women for work they don't do?

[Solon]

25. Their are many career women who never left.

They still make about 3/4 of males in the same seniority and positions. Sexism plays a MAJOR role in income disparities, that's a fact. While what you say has some merit, we are talking about when all other things are equal, pay is not.

[Muddleoftheroad]

27. Fast Company

Did an interesting article on this and pointed out that many women are not willing to devote their whole lives to their jobs as many men are and that hurts their earning potential.

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

29. It's good to not see us at each other's throats

for a change.

[Muddleoftheroad]

30. We don't always disagree

Even DuctapeFatwa found that out.

[dryan]

31. The topic is equal pay guys and gals!

[Kathy in Cambridge]

32. That's just not true-most women I know with kids work

and only took the month off that they were allowed for maternity leave. Many companies have paternity leave now as well.

Should a man who takes a month off for sickness or vacation be penalized from ascending the corporate ladder?

[dryan]

35. Unequal pay effects men too

The Bureau of Labor Statistics and the AFL-CIO have both published figures stating that because of unequal pay -- over the course of a woman's life time she may loose up to $500,000 in salary. If she is married, her husband and children loose out too. This is across the board, in all professions, trades, and vocations--even in fields that have more men than women such as nursing and teaching. To throw in the "draft" (which doesn't exist for men or women right now) is specious.

[cap]

36. sorry not good enough...

Dept of Justice had KPMG do a study of their merit hires -- men and women from Ivy League and Top 10% of their university. They found that the women simply never received the key assignments that put them into a fast track promotion. It was the first line managers who doled out the assignments. Women received the administrative law assignments that don't track well for promotions; men received the high profile ligation assignments that trained them for larger cases.

In law, this problem will get worse -- 50% of law students are women!!!

Second, after 10 years experience, it doesn't matter that you took time off. In want ads there is no calling for 15 years as opposed to 10 or 20 years experience as opposed to 10. Women can catch up over time. Your argument presupposes that anyone who changes careers can't catch up which is simply not true.

Women don't want to work 70 hour weeks; men don't either. But guess what, he who doesn't gets laid off. Many couples see that the man has the better potential of hanging on and making the promotion so they sacrifice one person's career. Don't see too many men bolting the office these days to pick up the kid before child care closes. Everyone knows that guy who does it on a regular basis will get sacked on one pretext or another.

I know so many 40+ year old women who are sitting on their tails who can't get meaningful work because no one will hire them in their profession. So they end up in dumb jobs if their husbands can't support them.

Believe me, single mothers do want a career and do want the pay raises. They have families to support. But our work structure prohibits them from getting home and making dinner for kids. Somebody has to be at home for the kids!!! The kids can't live a 70 hour work week with no adult supervision.

It's just assumed that the woman will do this. Any men who try to do this are heavily penalized. It's not that women must accept getting less -- it's that our work structure needs a radical revision -- starting out with bring back a 40 hr work week with a livable wage.

Women know kids have their needs. That's why they don't want to devote their whole lives to their jobs as men have to these days. All this rationalization is a good way to blind side women and track them out of the work force at a time when the competition for jobs is at an all time high. Doesn't it strike you that it is just wrong to have work consume all your waking hours -- even to get that promotion??? In the early 80's we worked some overtime periodically but now, we are forced to work overtime on a regular basis.

No, most women want to work because they need the money!!!! It's not a pin job any more. It's the difference between health care/retirement for their family, college education for their kids, or in many cases, just to make ends meet each month... it's not playtime .... it's not just something they do to fill up their day. And women need to be paid equally.

[Libertarialoon]

44. I disagree

Women don't want to work 70 hour weeks; men don't either. But guess what, he who doesn't gets laid off. Many couples see that the man has the better potential of hanging on and making the promotion so they sacrifice one person's career. Don't see too many men bolting the office these days to pick up the kid before child care closes. Everyone knows that guy who does it on a regular basis will get sacked on one pretext or another.

This is simply untrue in many cases. There are plenty of companies with good jobs that do not require these types of workloads. I am in one of these jobs that supposedly requires loads of mandatory overtime (electrical engineering), and I rarely work more than a 50 hour work week. Certainly, there are times when I work more or even less, but the idea that most companies are treating their workers as slaves is absurd.

I know so many 40+ year old women who are sitting on their tails who can't get meaningful work because no one will hire them in their profession.

And I know many men in the same situation, particularly right now when the eceonomy is down. I don't think that's particularly relevant.

Believe me, single mothers do want a career and do want the pay raises. They have families to support. But our work structure prohibits them from getting home and making dinner for kids. Somebody has to be at home for the kids!!! The kids can't live a 70 hour work week with no adult supervision.

Life sucks. You can't have it all regardless of what you've been told. Everyone makes decisions based on what they deem to be important. If you make the decision to have children, you need to take care of them.

It's just assumed that the woman will do this. Any men who try to do this are heavily penalized. It's not that women must accept getting less -- it's that our work structure needs a radical revision -- starting out with bring back a 40 hr work week with a livable wage.

So you want the government to mandate how much a person can work per week and how much an employer has to pay said worker? Talk about a recipe for economic disaster! If a worker and an employer agree on how much a person should work per week and how much he should be paid, why is it any business of yours or the government? No one is holding a gun to anyone's head forcing them to do a crap job for no pay. If you don't like it, take a walk and find something else.

No, most women want to work because they need the money!!!! It's not a pin job any more. It's the difference between health care/retirement for their family, college education for their kids, or in many cases, just to make ends meet each month... it's not playtime .... it's not just something they do to fill up their day. And women need to be paid equally.

Not if they are not willing to put in the same time and effort as a man or another woman who doesn't have children.

Look, I'm sorry that children take time and effort to raise, but they do. My wife gave up her career as a teacher to raise our three children. That's a decision we made together because we felt it was best for our children to give up certain things economically in order to give them a solid, loving foundation at home. The fact is that if you have children to care for, you cannot dedicate the same time and effort to a career as someone who doesn't. There are only so many hours in a day, and caring for children is a 24 hour a day job. Being a mother is the most difficult yet rewarding job I can imagine. My wife works twice as hard as I do each day for zero pay. That's a decision we made and one that we live with. There's no magic wand you can wave to make these issues go away. If you don't like it, then don't have kids. Pretty simple.

[cap]

69. your last paragraph says it all...

my wife gave up her career to raise our kids. Mind you, I'm not knocking her choice but I am attacking a system that unfairly penalizes women and does not provide easy entrance on and off the career path.

So your options for a woman are to be childless and have a career or to stay at home (for however long you wish) and not be economically self sufficient and have kids. That is a false choice.

There is a magic wand that you can wave. It is, in fact, government regulation of the workplace. Already, the government has mandated how much a person can work per week and how much an employer has to pay the worker. There are many laws and regulations regarding work weeks, and overtime payment. There are all kinds of laws regarding worker safety. In fact in Japan, they are starting to regulate total number of hours worked due to the high incidence of karoshi (death induced by overwork). I've worked one place that have had people drop dead from heart attacks due to a large amount of overtime -- their families are suing. I have a different view of government than you do -- government can protect us from the excesses of corporations.

Government regulation of the workplace has brought us EEOC that has mandated equal hiring and promotion. EEOC is not being enforced these days. That's one of the problems. Government has forced corporations to be fair to people because corporations won't be fair on their own. We just need to take it a step further.

I think the ideal would be for a world where a woman can participate in the workforce as much as her talents and energy permit her and for a man to participate in raising his children as much as her heart would permit. An ideal would be for each to participate in either world as the individual sees fit.

[Libertarialoon]

38. Skeptical

They still make about 3/4 of males in the same seniority and positions.

I simply do not believe this is as prevalent as you assert. I work in a very large corporation (Motorola) that is typical of most high-tech global corporations, and there is zero evidence that women in equivalent positions make significantly less than men as a rule. I'm sure there are cases where men make less than a women in an equivalent position as well, but that does not mean that is the rule instead of the exception.

Sexism plays a MAJOR role in income disparities, that's a fact.

Since you say it is a fact that sexism plays a major role in income disparities, I'd like to know what evidence you base this fact upon.

[pmbryant]

41. Zero evidence?

The lack of evidence of discrimination is not the same as the evidence of a lack of discrimination. Most companies do not make pay info public, so how would anyone know whether there is systematic discrimination or not?

The fact is that numerous, detailed, wide-ranging studies have shown that the pay disparity between men and women, for equal work based on equal experience, education, etc, is very significant: roughly 20% (Again, see the GAO report from last November for at least one example.)

--Peter

[Libertarialoon]

45. I was referring to my company

The lack of evidence of discrimination is not the same as the evidence of a lack of discrimination. Most companies do not make pay info public, so how would anyone know whether there is systematic discrimination or not?

So you're indicating that no one would know if there is disparity in pay due solely to sexism? Thanks for agreeing with me.

The fact is that numerous, detailed, wide-ranging studies have shown that the pay disparity between men and women, for equal work based on equal experience, education, etc, is very significant: roughly 20% (Again, see the GAO report from last November for at least one example.)

Even if this is true, you cannot argue that there are not more risks involved in hiring a woman than there are in hiring a man. Many more women leave the workforce each year to raise a family than do men. I could argue that women should be paid equally to men if you'll agree that women should have to agree to not leave the job for a certain length of time to raise a family or they risk having to pay back a portion of their salary to make up for the added risk to the employer in hiring a woman.

[pmbryant]

50. What you advocate is against the law

So you're indicating that no one would know if there is disparity in pay due solely to sexism? Thanks for agreeing with me.

No. Perhaps I was unclear. I'm saying that companies make it very hard to find out if they, themselves, are discriminating, by hiding their pay info. The studies that have been done (the ones I've seen at least) are much broader than individual companies.

Perhaps your company is fine; perhaps not. There has been no evidence presented one way or the other. But the problem is far more pervasive than just one company.

Even if this is true, you cannot argue that there are not more risks involved in hiring a woman than there are in hiring a man. Many more women leave the workforce each year to raise a family than do men. I could argue that women should be paid equally to men if you'll agree that women should have to agree to not leave the job for a certain length of time to raise a family or they risk having to pay back a portion of their salary to make up for the added risk to the employer in hiring a woman.

This entire paragraph is the language of discrimination. Women are "riskier" than men and thus owe the company a portion of the cost of their labor? Any company that made this an official policy of theirs would be guilty of violating the law, as I read it (I am not a lawyer, however). I just found this in a book written by an expert on these matters:

On-the-job gender discrimination occurs when an employee is treated differently from a person of the opposite sex under similar circumstances for reasons based solely on the employee's sex.
  --Job Discrimination II, Jeffrey Bernbach, Esq., p. 35

So, apparently, what you are advocating, is actually against the law. Thankfully. The only problem is enforcing the law.

--Peter

EDIT: fixed formatting of quote

[Libertarialoon]

53. I wasn't advocating anything.

Do you agree or disagree that hiring a woman entails more risk to an employer than hiring a man due to the fact that more women leave the workforce each year to raise a family than do men? This has nothing to do with their qualifications.

My point was that this added risk could account for some of the difference in pay. Whether it is against the law or not is irrelevant. There are plenty of laws on the books that are bad laws.

The idea that a company owes you anything other than what you agree to be paid for a given job is ridiculous. If you don't like what's being offered, ask for more or walk. There are plenty of companies out there that are willing to pay a qualified woman (or man) a salary commensurate with their qualifications.

[pmbryant]

55. Your attitude is quite clear

I disagree. Work isn't about "risk": it is about labor and being paid for that labor. People leave jobs all the time, men and women. The risk that the employee leaves is a cost of doing business and should have no bearing on how much the employee is paid. (And I see no reason to assume that women leave jobs more frequently than men, in any case.)

My point was that this added risk could account for some of the difference in pay. Whether it is against the law or not is irrelevant. There are plenty of laws on the books that are bad laws.

Now you seem to imply that the law against sex discrimination is a bad law. Would you say the same about the law on racial discrimination?

Clearly we are not going to agree on much of anything on this matter.

--Peter

[Libertarialoon]

56. Discrimination laws

Now you seem to imply that the law against sex discrimination is a bad law. Would you say the same about the law on racial discrimination?

Yes. I believe laws against discrimination are unnecessary. If an employer wants to limit himself to a certain portion of the workforce, why shouldn't he be able to? Of course, he is only hurting himself by removing many qualified candidates from the pool of labor. This is a self-defeating position. Companies are interested in maximizing profits, not in oppressing a segment of the population.

Clearly we are not going to agree on much of anything on this matter.

Probably not, but I do understand your position. I just think it's wrong.

[pmbryant]

39. This is very misleading

No one is advocating paying anyone for work that is not done.

Many studies have factored out experience and education and all sorts of other factors, including time out of the workforce (not to mention that a fair amount of these differences in experience and education also arise due to discrimination) and yet still show a very significant pay gap between men and women: 20% in the case of a GAO study released last fall.

Perhaps you can find some other excuse for that 20% difference than discrimination, but you cannot use taking time off to raise a family, or other differences in experience and education level.

Given the long history of sex discrimination in this country, no doubt the bulk of that 20% difference (perhaps even all of it) is due to that factor.

--Peter

[Libertarialoon]

49. Additional risk

Since many more women leave the workforce each year to raise a family than do men, there is added risk for an employer to hire a woman over a man. Perhaps the difference in pay is a reflection of that risk.

It's very simple to sit back and cry racism or sexism instead of looking at the deeper issues involved. Employers are always dealing with unknowns whenever they hire an employee. If an employer and an employee agree that a given salary is acceptable to both parties, why is it anyone else's business? The employee can always ask for more if they believe they are being lowballed or they can look elsewhere.

[catzies]

43. Welcome to DU, Libertarialoon.

There are other factors that make this a broader issue.

When women who were already working take time off to raise their children, they're also not paying into SS & Medicare, or saving for their retirements. They're not only making less money in the short run and over their career span, but in the long run and when their careers end as well.

Women live longer than men, and even if they're married for a very long time, and outlive their husbands, there may still come a time that in their old age their standards of living will diminish because of lack of money.

We could be facing very soon a generation of poor widows. That just sounds very Dickensian to me and I have no desire, unlike the conservatives of today, to roll the clock back 150 years.

[Libertarialoon]

51. Opportunity costs

When women who were already working take time off to raise their children, they're also not paying into SS & Medicare, or saving for their retirements. They're not only making less money in the short run and over their career span, but in the long run and when their careers end as well.

But that's a decision they make themselves. There are opportunity costs involved in having children. One of those is making sure someone can take care of them.

I don't want to sound heartless. My own wife struggled with these same issues when we had children. We finally decided that she should leave the workforce and raise our kids herself. We've given up many material things in doing so, but it was the right decision for us. Maybe it's not the right decision for everyone; however, if you make the decision to have children, you need to live with the consequences of your decision, including the fact that you either pay for someone to take care of them during the workday or you are compensated less for working less.

[catzies]

54. Well, I hope you live a long life, and have a happy, strong marriage.

I have no disagreements with your points on accepting personal responsibility for your children, including the financial aspects you mentioned. I also hope that, in the event something changes with you as the biggest breadwinner of your family, that you have provided for them well if you're no longer around, God forbid.

It is a struggle, and it doesn't appear to be going away any time soon. It may never.

But for others who are not in the same boat as you, remedies are different.

[cap]

70. sorry but I went to an Ivy League college and an elite prep school

and I did not bust my chops to sit at home or to take a secondary career.

[dawn]

68. What about the women who never have children? Or have them and never leave

I should not be paid less because I *may* have children.

I can't believe I am reading this on a "liberal" board.

[cally]

34. I knew equal pay day was around this time

It is such a complex issue. Sexism certainly plays a large part in the income inequality. Other factors play a large part also like women tend to cluster in lesser paying jobs like teaching and social work. Women are often the primary caregiver of children and other family members and may have less time to devote to careers. Still, none of this explains why jobs that have more women tend to pay less than jobs with mostly men. Women who are childless and focused on their career still tend to make less. Even when women take off a year or two to care for children one would expect them to get right back on the career track only a few years behind their male and female peers who never took off work. Instead, studies seem to indicate that their careers are permanently damaged.

[dryan]

46. If qnyone doesn't think there is a problem--read today's NYT

On page 1 there is an explosive article about the continuing scandal at Merrill Lynch.

[pmbryant]

58. "Merrill Lynch Ordered to Pay for Sexual Bias". Here's the link

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/04/21/business/21BIAS.html?adxnnl=1&adxnnlx=1082568077-55lDRczD6QcwvnU7Eq5Elg

Merrill Lynch Ordered to Pay for Sexual Bias
By PATRICK McGEEHAN

EM;MIJ">Merrill Lynch & Company, the nation's biggest brokerage firm, discriminated against women who worked as stockbrokers, according to a panel of arbitrators that has awarded $2.2 million to one of them.

That decision, which was made Monday but not disclosed until yesterday, was the first legal ruling to find that a Wall Street firm had engaged in systematic discrimination. The finding could be used to bolster the claims of about 40 current and former Merrill brokers who have not settled their discrimination claims against the firm. Merrill has already paid more than $100 million in settlements with hundreds of other women who joined a class-action case against the firm more than five years ago.

Merrill and another large brokerage firm, the Smith Barney unit of Citigroup, are in the latter stages of a protracted process to resolve mass claims of sex discrimination that were filed in the late 1990's. Women who had worked as brokers at the two firms contended that the firms continued to favor men and pay them more than women long after many other white-collar industries had ended such practices.

Since those suits were filed, the biggest firms on Wall Street have said that they have improved their treatment of employees who are women and have taken steps to prevent sexual harassment.

Eight women representing female employees of Merrill's brokerage operation sued in 1997, contending that they had been denied promotions and opportunities to succeed that were routinely offered to their male co-workers. Some also contended that they had been subjected to sexual harassment in a hostile work environment. The class included 2,800 women, more than 900 of whom brought claims.

Merrill settled the original lawsuit by agreeing to resolve the claims individually, first through mediation and then arbitration.

(snip)

[MAlibdem]

47. Equal Pay Day?

Why would they put it on Pot Appreciation Day?

Bad scheduling...

[dryan]

66. Day moves around every year!