Gorfias: It is a fact that my personal experiences tell me an emplloyer is getting, on average, more than from a male stock boy than they are from a female.
I don't care what your personal experience is. Nor do I care what the voices inside your head say or what the leprechaun who wants you to burn things says. We do not deny half of an entire population equal pay just because one guy on the internet thinks all women are inferior workers.
We do not allow half the population to become exploited 2nd class citizens, no matter how many public school educated drones think we're supposed to.
Half the population would not become 2nd class citizens if a woman got paid for doing the same work as her male coworkers. Please stop with the exaggerations.
We do not allow half the population to become exploited 2nd class citizens, no matter how many public school educated drones think we're supposed to.
But the ones that are ALREADY exploited second class citizens get to STAY that way, right? :-P
Gorfias, there's a cliche in Liberal blogs I frequent that Conservatives seem to think that 'rights' are a zero-sum game: "If women get more rights, it means men get less. If negroes are free, the whites must get enslaved. if gays can marry, the straights can't. If Other Religion is allowed free expression, that means My Religion is being oppressed!" I _used_ to think this was a mean exaggeration... then I read this thread.
And Gorfias, TRY to get this through your head - us Libruls want to see women get paid the same as men for DOING THE SAME WORK. Somehow, you seem to simultaneously insisting that this is unnecessary because no such discrimination exists, AND insisting that keeping this law would be victimizing men by forcing them to work harder for less pay, both of which arguments are obvious bullshit.
We do not allow half the population to become exploited 2nd class citizens, no matter how many public school educated drones think we're supposed to.
But the ones that are ALREADY exploited second class citizens get to STAY that way, right? :-P
Gorfias, there's a cliche in Liberal blogs I frequent that Conservatives seem to think that 'rights' are a zero-sum game: "If women get more rights, it means men get less. If negroes are free, the whites must get enslaved. if gays can marry, the straights can't. If Other Religion is allowed free expression, that means My Religion is being oppressed!" I _used_ to think this was a mean exaggeration... then I read this thread.
And Gorfias, TRY to get this through your head - us Libruls want to see women get paid the same as men for DOING THE SAME WORK. Somehow, you seem to simultaneously insisting that this is unnecessary because no such discrimination exists, AND insisting that keeping this law would be victimizing men by forcing them to work harder for less pay, both of which arguments are obvious bullshit.
Both arguments also that can't exist at the same time. If no such discrimination exists, laws to curtail it will do nothing, which won't force men to work more. If men are forced to work more to stay earning a dollar to a woman's every 75 cents, then discrimination does exist. It's like.. pick one.
Libruls want to see women get paid the same as men for DOING THE SAME WORK.
We're arguing in circles here.
I think you are in earnest: you want what you state you want. I'm just trying to warn y'all, it will not work out that way.
If a woman EARNS 75 cents and a man EARNS $1.25 at a time in which they have the same employment position, under laws like ERA or LL, a court may order what will, in effect, be a transfer of $0.25 from the male to the female. It will happen, and it will be unjust (unless you are a radical egalitarian, each according to ability, etc...)
Gorfias: Upon highering, they haven't done anything yet. After employing people, we can predict certain trends. Males are taller and can lift more than females. If we pay by performance, we can predict under limited criteria that males will earn more than females.
So you'll still be paying by guesswork rather than actual results? I'm a dude and I still wouldn't want to work for you. You sound like every terrible boss I've ever had.
Thank you for noting what I've been arguing 1/2 this thread: males and females are different. I add, those differences can result in different pay. You apparantly didn't read earlier posts I made where I too noted female differences may end up putting them on top of male earnings, as reported by either Time, Newsweek or both within the past month. Will that be sexist if it happens? Yes or no?
Yes. And I only noted the differences because they actually result in both having the ability, albeit for different reasons, to accomplish the exact same ends. You seem to be following the MBA model of figuring out who you can lowball to save money. I follow the Roger Corman model: I don't care who you are or where you come from, I will give you a job and fair pay if you can get the job done on time and under budget.
Doesn't matter. You would pay people based on speculation about their genetics. I would pay people based on actual accomplishment. Which of us do you think people would rather work for?
Gorfias: I quipped about this that I'd notify the NFL, but I 'd like to ask you a follow up rhetorical question:
The NFL pays really well. Given what you've written above, why aren't about 1/2 their players female, earning millions of dollars, rather than, to my knowledge, no female players at all?
Your answer may help Katatori-Kun face a few realities.
If it's a rhetorical question, why do you want my answer?
Gorfias: If a woman EARNS 75 cents and a man EARNS $1.25 at a time in which they have the same employment position, under laws like ERA or LL, a court may order what will, in effect, be a transfer of $0.25 from the male to the female. It will happen, and it will be unjust (unless you are a radical egalitarian, each according to ability, etc...)
Or they could just bump the woman's pay up 50 cents. If that's radical, then I must have missed a memo somewhere.
Libruls want to see women get paid the same as men for DOING THE SAME WORK.
We're arguing in circles here.
I think you are in earnest: you want what you state you want. I'm just trying to warn y'all, it will not work out that way.
If a woman EARNS 75 cents and a man EARNS $1.25 at a time in which they have the same employment position, under laws like ERA or LL, a court may order what will, in effect, be a transfer of $0.25 from the male to the female. It will happen, and it will be unjust (unless you are a radical egalitarian, each according to ability, etc...)
That's like saying that "If slaves are allowed the same working compensation as a free man, free men will make less money, and slave owners even less!", as a justification of discrimination and slavery, and even presuming that was true, guess how many fucks I give?
Gorfias: Upon highering, they haven't done anything yet. After employing people, we can predict certain trends. Males are taller and can lift more than females. If we pay by performance, we can predict under limited criteria that males will earn more than females.
So you'll still be paying by guesswork rather than actual results? I'm a dude and I still wouldn't want to work for you. You sound like every terrible boss I've ever had.
There is a school of thought that, if group A, by traditional standards, is paid more than group B, this is still an afront to egalitarianism that must be corrected. I just disagree.
Those too sound like the horseshit metrics people justify paying black people less, because they're 'less smart' or whatever, but I haven't seen any realistic proof that women being shorter on average of men means they can't drive a fucking forklift or flip a fucking burger.
As if all work in 21st century America was weight lifting championships and shit.
Realistically though wouldn't that be a model to pay people, not based on gender, but by their height? I still don't see white males coming out on top of that.
Gorfias: I quipped about this that I'd notify the NFL, but I 'd like to ask you a follow up rhetorical question:
The NFL pays really well. Given what you've written above, why aren't about 1/2 their players female, earning millions of dollars, rather than, to my knowledge, no female players at all?
Your answer may help Katatori-Kun face a few realities.
If it's a rhetorical question, why do you want my answer?
Because.. it's illegal for them to play to the game?
"Tied you to a chair and put you in the ocean. You claimed to be a good swimmer. Why are you drowning?"
Gorfias: If a woman EARNS 75 cents and a man EARNS $1.25 at a time in which they have the same employment position, under laws like ERA or LL, a court may order what will, in effect, be a transfer of $0.25 from the male to the female. It will happen, and it will be unjust (unless you are a radical egalitarian, each according to ability, etc...)
That's like saying that "If slaves are allowed the same working compensation as a free man, free men will make less money, and slave owners even less!", as a justification of discrimination and slavery, and even presuming that was true, guess how many fucks I give?
The NFL pays really well. Given what you've written above, why aren't about 1/2 their players female, earning millions of dollars, rather than, to my knowledge, no female players at all?
Your answer may help Katatori-Kun face a few realities.
If it's a rhetorical question, why do you want my answer?
The exercise of typing out the answer may clarify why you and so many arguing with me are so wrong.
Because.. it's illegal for them to play to the game?
Gorfias: The exercise of typing out the answer may clarify why you and so many arguing with me are so wrong.
If you want an answer, then it's not a rhetorical question. And if you really want an answer, it's because our society is still stuck on this idea that playing sports is strictly for manly men who see nothing even vaguely homoerotic with a bunch of sweaty dudes grappling with each other for a ball.
As time goes on I find the idea of separating competitions based on sex to be silly. If someone can compete, let them.
Gorfias: The exercise of typing out the answer may clarify why you and so many arguing with me are so wrong.
If you want an answer, then it's not a rhetorical question. And if you really want an answer, it's because our society is still stuck on this idea that playing sports is strictly for manly men who see nothing even vaguely homoerotic with a bunch of sweaty dudes grappling with each other for a ball.
As time goes on I find the idea of separating competitions based on sex to be silly. If someone can compete, let them.
I know of know bar to women being in football, so, if that really was an honest answer from you, I guess it isn't a rhetorical question. if you really don't know the answer I'll spell it out: Women are different than man in a lot of ways. This results in them not taking multi-million dollar positions in professional football. Seriously, how weak minded do you think women are, that they, at this time, they would turn down a chance to make millions of dollars playing a game?
These differences are why 1/2 the NFL is not female. It is also why sometimes there appears to be an economic improbability (impossibility) that women are paid less for the same work.
Gorfias: Women are different than man in a lot of ways.
None of which actually matter in the workplace. Again, I would not pay an employee based on the number of X chromosomes they possess but on the actual work that they do. I care about results.
Your arguments that men in manual labor should be paid more because of greater height and muscle mass is like saying that black landscapers and construction workers should be paid more than whites because the higher amount of melanin in their skin makes them able to work outdoors in the summer longer with fewer ill effects.
This results in them not taking multi-million dollar positions in professional football. Seriously, how weak minded do you think women are, that they, at this time, they would turn down a chance to make millions of dollars playing a game?
Because of course, everybody secretly dreams of being a star athlete. Did it ever occur to you that maybe, just maybe, there's sexism in sports entertainment that isn't officially written down?
It is also why sometimes there appears to be an economic improbability (impossibility) that women are paid less for the same work.
So the income gap between men and women is just an illusion because football? What?
Gorfias: If a woman EARNS 75 cents and a man EARNS $1.25 at a time in which they have the same employment position, under laws like ERA or LL, a court may order what will, in effect, be a transfer of $0.25 from the male to the female. It will happen, and it will be unjust (unless you are a radical egalitarian, each according to ability, etc...)
That's like saying that "If slaves are allowed the same working compensation as a free man, free men will make less money, and slave owners even less!", as a justification of discrimination and slavery, and even presuming that was true, guess how many fucks I give?
No, no it really, really isn't.
No, to me there's no difference, except the scale of discrimination or exploitation.
You're saying "If businesses are forced to stop exploiting these people's equal labor to give them less pay, then I'll make less money", and "If the government stops the exploitation of equal labor for less money, then, I, profiting from said system, will make less money.", and that can be used to justify any amount of discrimination you profit from.
But I don't give a fuck. If your system only exists by fucking people over, then it's a terrible system and I won't shed many tears at its passing.
You seem to be running on the idea that women are getting payed 75% of pay for 75% of work. If that was true, then maybe you'd have a point. But it's not. They're getting payed 75% of pay for 100% of work, in which your whole dumb as shit logic house of cards collapses, leaving nothing but misogyny and profiteering on another's misfortune behind (the whole "And if they get payed 100% for 100% work, I make less proportionate money!), and I don't really give a damn for either of those principles, full stop.
This isn't a case of women going into a workforce and failing to do their job or working only 3 quarters as long as men, then wanting to get payed the same, which you want so goddamn desperately to make it out to be.
This is a case of women going into a workforce, pulling in the same work and hours as men, getting payed less, then being told it's their fault for being naturally genetically shitty at the job they're already goddamn succeeding at by morons.
You seem to be running on the idea that women are getting payed 75% of pay for 75% of work. If that was true, then maybe you'd have a point. But it's not. They're getting payed 75% of pay for 100% of work, in which your whole dumb as shit logic house of cards collapses, leaving nothing but misogyny and profiteering on another's misfortune behind (the whole "And if they get payed 100% for 100% work, I make less proportionate money!), and I don't really give a damn for either of those principles, full stop.
This isn't a case of women going into a workforce and failing to do their job or working only 3 quarters as long as men, then wanting to get payed the same, which you want so goddamn desperately to make it out to be.
This is a case of women going into a workforce, pulling in the same work and hours as men, getting payed less, then being told it's their fault for being naturally genetically shitty at the job they're already goddamn succeeding at by morons.
What he said. Gorf, when you inevitably try to 'rebut' this, please answer one hopefully simple question: At a desk job, how much bonus value does a Y chromosome REALLY bring to the job?
Gorfias: Women are different than man in a lot of ways.
None of which actually matter in the workplace. Again, I would not pay an employee based on the number of X chromosomes they possess but on the actual work that they do. I care about results.
You wouldn't know that by the lack of women in the NFL.
It is also why sometimes there appears to be an economic improbability (impossibility) that women are paid less for the same work.
So the income gap between men and women is just an illusion because football? What?
Football exposes A difference between men and women that shows they are different in ways that can effect income.
Um, no, it is illegal, by the game rules of those divisions. Don't misunderstand, I didn't mean there was a federal law.
What is outside the rules? Women are barred by a division rule? 1) Can you provide me a link that states this; 2) Can you find me a qualified female that has been turned down for this reason and tell her to get a lawyer?
You seem to be running on the idea that women are getting payed 75% of pay for 75% of work. If that was true, then maybe you'd have a point.
Thank you. Largely, that is my position.
Again, if I can get 100% from a woman for 75% the cost, I'd let as many men go as possible and replace them with women.
But it's not. They're getting payed 75% of pay for 100% of work
For reasons stated above, I think that is largely impossible.
This isn't a case of women going into a workforce and failing to do their job or working only 3 quarters as long as men, then wanting to get payed the same, which you want so goddamn desperately to make it out to be.
Again, for reasons stated above (and from personal experience) that is exactly what it is. At least when Walmart gets sued in a class action that leaves them little ability to defend on a case by case basis.
This is a case of women going into a workforce, pulling in the same work and hours as men, getting payed less, then being told it's their fault for being naturally genetically shitty at the job they're already goddamn succeeding at by morons.
Like Football, coal mining and Alaskan fishing, or putting in 100 hour weeks at the lawfirm or making 4 hour a day commutes, there are choices people make. Women make choices that, over the course of their career can/does have an impact upon their earning power.
At a desk job, how much bonus value does a Y chromosome REALLY bring to the job?
If, because you own a Y chromosome, you are willing to commute further for a better deal, (answering a market need faster) or put in longer hours so that you can do things at your desk faster, with fewer questions or mistakes than a double X'er, then yes, that Y is going to have an impact upon your pay. Right? Or if you were on trial for murder, would you want someone with 3 years experience working 60 hours a week, or the 3 year experience lawyer that has been working 100?
Again, if I can get 100% from a woman for 75% the cost, I'd let as many men go as possible and replace them with women.
But it's not. They're getting payed 75% of pay for 100% of work
For reasons stated above, I think that is largely impossible.
No, that is what you imagine you would do, not what is actually happening.
This isn't a case of women going into a workforce and failing to do their job or working only 3 quarters as long as men, then wanting to get payed the same, which you want so goddamn desperately to make it out to be.
Again, for reasons stated above (and from personal experience) that is exactly what it is. At least when Walmart gets sued in a class action that leaves them little ability to defend on a case by case basis.
Women make choices that, over the course of their career can/does have an impact upon their earning power.
Having two C-chromosomes is not a choice.
If, because you own a Y chromosome, you are willing to commute further for a better deal, (answering a market need faster) or put in longer hours so that you can do things at your desk faster, with fewer questions or mistakes than a double X'er, then yes, that Y is going to have an impact upon your pay. Right? Or if you were on trial for murder, would you want someone with 3 years experience working 60 hours a week, or the 3 year experience lawyer that has been working 100?
What? No, the question was, "What genetic benefit does a Y chromosome give to a desk job?" You didn't answer that, you just presupposed that all men work harder than women because we're men. That's not an answer. Do not bullshit a bullshitter because I'm way better at it than you.
At a desk job, how much bonus value does a Y chromosome REALLY bring to the job?
If, because you own a Y chromosome, you are willing to commute further for a better deal, (answering a market need faster) or put in longer hours so that you can do things at your desk faster, with fewer questions or mistakes than a double X'er, then yes, that Y is going to have an impact upon your pay. Right? Or if you were on trial for murder, would you want someone with 3 years experience working 60 hours a week, or the 3 year experience lawyer that has been working 100?
Wow, an actual answer.
Now, outside of 1950s stereotypes, do you have any actual EVIDENCE than woman are more inherently incompetent at desk-jockeying and hard work than men?
And I think I might prefer the 60-hour-week slightly-less-insane workaholic. Sleep deprivation does BAD THINGS to peoples' competence.
Are you doubting that women do not commute as far to work on average as do men? That they take more time off, more days, 1/2 days, maternity leave, shorter work days, maybe take a decade long break from work during which time men, who are less likely to do that gain valuable experience? Are you doubting this occurs?
I didn't realize I'd been obtuse. I thought I'd been typing the same common sense common knowledge repeatedly.
Now, outside of 1950s stereotypes, do you have any actual EVIDENCE than woman are more inherently incompetent at desk-jockeying and hard work than men?
Their pay. But society is changing, and without laws and lawsuits, so is women's pay, hence the cover page news articles on how women may over-take men pay wise soon.
And I think I might prefer the 60-hour-week slightly-less-insane workaholic. Sleep deprivation does BAD THINGS to peoples' competence.
I think employers think differently, especially in the medical field (though I've seen news analysis critical of the medical profession on this matter. The med people have an argument for 36 hour shifts, common sense has an argument against it.)
Are you doubting that women do not commute as far to work on average as do men? That they take more time off, more days, 1/2 days, maternity leave, shorter work days, maybe take a decade long break from work during which time men, who are less likely to do that gain valuable experience? Are you doubting this occurs?
Answer my question first. And I will repeat it now so there's no confusion: Do you believe that people should be paid based on their genetics rather than on the actual productivity they bring to their work?
Their pay.
That's circular logic.
I think employers think differently,
Employers think a lot of things. A lot of them are wrong. The last ten years in the work-a-day world have convinced me of that.
Now, outside of 1950s stereotypes, do you have any actual EVIDENCE than woman are more inherently incompetent at desk-jockeying and hard work than men?
Their pay.
So, in Gorfiasland, women are paid less because they don't work as hard as men, a fact that you know because... they're paid less.
WHARRGARBL
Using that 'logic', illegal immigrants must be the laziest employed people in the country. I wonder why employers keep breaking the law to hire them, then?
RedEyesBlackGamer: Being a white male, it is news to me that I am in the most discriminated against group of my generation. Hell, I would have guessed homosexuals, women, people of Hispanic descent....Nope, it is me, apparently.
So, only the "most" discriminated against group should be alert to injustice? Everyone else go hang? Gay people may be not be the most discriminated group of this generation, but the fight for, for instance, gay marriage is still worth doing. Jews, Catholics, Mormons, Hispanics... all have ongoing issues worth fighting for, even if they are not the "most" discriminated against group. I for one, am willing to do my part. I would hope you are willing to do yours too.
How is a woman getting payed the same amount I am to do the same job as me discriminating against me in any way?
Also, the "Just World Hypothesis" has reared its ugly head again. Women are payed less because they do less work on average, it can't possibly be other factors like sexism.
Are you doubting that women do not commute as far to work on average as do men? That they take more time off, more days, 1/2 days, maternity leave, shorter work days, maybe take a decade long break from work during which time men, who are less likely to do that gain valuable experience? Are you doubting this occurs?
Answer my question first. And I will repeat it now so there's no confusion: Do you believe that people should be paid based on their genetics rather than on the actual productivity they bring to their work?
I'll write this again: I think men and women are different and that sometimes, it is women that bring something extra to the table.
At my grocery store, the males are typically stocking things while girls are running the cash registers.
When females do bring something extra to the market, regardless of their chromsomes, they should get paid something extra, and vice versa.
Now, outside of 1950s stereotypes, do you have any actual EVIDENCE than woman are more inherently incompetent at desk-jockeying and hard work than men?
Their pay.
So, in Gorfiasland, women are paid less because they don't work as hard as men, a fact that you know because... they're paid less.
WHARRGARBL
Using that 'logic', illegal immigrants must be the laziest employed people in the country. I wonder why employers keep breaking the law to hire them, then?
Actually, in this one case, I do demand a sort of affirmative action: for those people who are citizens of this nation. The market really does work. Under threat of sanction, the market is still seeking out those demanding lower wages.
RedEyesBlackGamer: Also, the "Just World Hypothesis" has reared its ugly head again. Women are payed less because they do less work on average, it can't possibly be other factors like sexism.
Correct. There are no employers going, "ewey, girls! I wont hire them even if I could cut my human resources costs 30%." It would be silly to think there are.
Gorfias: I'll write this again: I think men and women are different and that sometimes, it is women that bring something extra to the table.
At my grocery store, the males are typically stocking things while girls are running the cash registers.
When females do bring something extra to the market, regardless of their chromsomes, they should get paid something extra, and vice versa.
And I'm going to ask again: do you believe in paying for genetics instead of performance? A simple yes or no will suffice.
Actually, in this one case, I do demand a sort of affirmative action: for those people who are citizens of this nation. The market really does work. Under threat of sanction, the market is still seeking out those demanding lower wages.
No workers are demanding lower wages. There are just other countries where workers get paid less and there are illegal immigrants who will take any pay they can get.
Correct. There are no employers going, "ewey, girls! I wont hire them even if I could cut my human resources costs 30%." It would be silly to think there are.
It happens on an unconscious level. The statistics show that women only out-earn men in one profession: maid and house-cleaning services, and that's only by 1 cent. For your assertion to be true, that would mean that the average woman is profoundly lazy in every job except house cleaning, and she only does that marginally better than a man. There's a word for that: bullshit. That's not possible.
The problem is that you keep asserting that there are biological differences between men and women, but you don't explain the causal link between those differences (the only ones of which you can list are purely superficial) and the disparity in wages. You simply assert that it must be true because women are getting paid less. I've made an effort to study the ways that men and women differ, biologically and neurologically and I have yet to see a shred of proof that any of these warrant treating women as inferior.
Are you doubting that women do not commute as far to work on average as do men? That they take more time off, more days, 1/2 days, maternity leave, shorter work days, maybe take a decade long break from work during which time men, who are less likely to do that gain valuable experience? Are you doubting this occurs?
Answer my question first. And I will repeat it now so there's no confusion: Do you believe that people should be paid based on their genetics rather than on the actual productivity they bring to their work?
I'll write this again: I think men and women are different and that sometimes, it is women that bring something extra to the table.
At my grocery store, the males are typically stocking things while girls are running the cash registers.
Nobody asked you for your anecdote. They asked, if you do the same work (not more, not less, the goddamn same), should your genetics or genitalia matter?
They didn't ask "Do you think they do the same work" because that was never the question.
And yet you keep spouting off about whatever bullshit talking point you've thought up, like it's a trick question or some shit.
Gorfias: When females do bring something extra to the market, regardless of their chromsomes, they should get paid something extra, and vice versa.
So, in Gorfiasland, women are paid less because they don't work as hard as men, a fact that you know because... they're paid less.
WHARRGARBL
Using that 'logic', illegal immigrants must be the laziest employed people in the country. I wonder why employers keep breaking the law to hire them, then?
Actually, in this one case, I do demand a sort of affirmative action: for those people who are citizens of this nation. The market really does work. Under threat of sanction, the market is still seeking out those demanding lower wages.
Why the heck do citizens need protection here, or affirmative action?
Let's go over a few things. First, nobody 'demands' a lower wage. That's just stupid. Second, you said that if people earn a lower wage it's because they're a worse worker.
Then why the fuck do we need to protect employees from hiring shitty workers? What good would an 'affirmative action' in favor of US citizens do?
Either these workers are shitty and no US citizen will or can lose a job to them (ergo no protections are needed), or the 'free market' has decided that workers should work in third world conditions, and that your spoiled ass US citizens should shut the fuck up, and learn to 'demand' even lower wages.
I mean, what, do you want some big government entitlement program to fix you up with a job you're obviously either not the most qualified or lowest bidder for?
What are you going to do, pay Mexicans a fair wage? That's money right out of your pocket (presuming you have a job and didn't lose it)? Right? Are you going to tell other countries they can't bid their services at a lower wage, or tell companies they can't solicit those bids? What are you some kind of Democrat?
But in all seriousness, I love the double standard that if a white man loses his job to a Mexican, it's not because white men do less work than Mexicans, or white men demand too much money, it's because Mexicans 'stole' their job and 'demanded' too little or some shit.
But if a woman gets payed less for accomplishing the same work in the same time, it's just because she's terrible at her job.
RedEyesBlackGamer: Also, the "Just World Hypothesis" has reared its ugly head again. Women are payed less because they do less work on average, it can't possibly be other factors like sexism.
Correct. There are no employers going, "ewey, girls! I wont hire them even if I could cut my human resources costs 30%." It would be silly to think there are.
I love how you have either no knowledge of logical fallacies, or no understanding of sarcasm.
But as far as the economy goes, there's no advantage of making sure 50% of your potential market share has no ability to purchase your products.. and yet sexism ran and runs rampant throughout history.
It's almost like people care more about being bigoted fuckwads than they do greed!
do you believe in paying for genetics instead of performance? A simple yes or no will suffice.
I believe in pay for performance, not genetics.
It happens on an unconscious level. The statistics show that women only out-earn men in one profession: maid and house-cleaning services, and that's only by 1 cent. For your assertion to be true, that would mean that the average woman is profoundly lazy in every job except house cleaning, and she only does that marginally better than a man.
Not lazy, but having many different priorities that affect their value in the market. You appear to think too little of women.
you keep asserting that there are biological differences between men and women, but you don't explain the causal link between those differences (the only ones of which you can list are purely superficial) and the disparity in wages. You simply assert that it must be true because women are getting paid less. I've made an effort to study the ways that men and women differ, biologically and neurologically and I have yet to see a shred of proof that any of these warrant treating women as inferior.
Scary, you've done all this study and haven't noticed: women have babies. Those babies are very often a priority over work for the mom. This was not so in my case, I was primary on child care and guess what: my career took a major hit. This doesn't mean I'm "inferior". It just means that the choices I've made have a market impact.
You were kind of on a rant there. I think I answered one of your questions in this post above. The most interesting point I think you were making is that a society has an interest in making certain people have the funds with which to purchase that society's goods and services. OK, agreed on that.
Not G. Ivingname: Turns out at least part of the "Life of Julia" is a lie.
No only would Ronmey keep the student loans interest rates as they are, but Obama's budget would get rid of that after one year.
Thanks for that link. Interesting stuff. You have to wonder why, in this internet instant information age, candidates will lie. These things come out.
Not, by a long shot, calling Romney perfect. My question is for any candidate in general.
Some people don't know Politifact (or, you know, check it regularly), or know Politifact but believe that it's an entirely unreliable left-wing partisan hack site. Some people are just really dumb (the overlap between the second and third group is fairly solid).
Good catch on that one, though, Not Givingname. ^^
You were kind of on a rant there. I think I answered one of your questions in this post above. The most interesting point I think you were making is that a society has an interest in making certain people have the funds with which to purchase that society's goods and services. OK, agreed on that.
The point I was making that you willfully ignored because you want to push the Just World fallacy is that, sexism, bigotry, racism, ageism, etc. has never benefited society, and yet all of that shit has been alive and well now and throughout history, because people don't always or even usually give a damn what's good for society. Hell, they don't always give a damn what's good for themselves when they really, really want to push forward some sort of bigotry.
You seem to think people some sort of all knowing, totally informed economic calculator robots that will do only things that benefit them financially, and yet reality clearly shows that's not even remotely true.
If anything, me being here and arguing this proves it's not true, because if it was true, I'd be a paradox. I'm ostensibly white and male, I'm bisexual (meaning that leading a heterosexual life could had been no real problem for me, and it would had been entirely possible I'd never even 'discover' this fact about myself, had things played out differently) and I dress conservatively. I'm the 'perfect' sleeper agent for any pro-white male heterosexual regime that doesn't do racial background checks 3 generations back.
If it was, as you said, that my pay rate is only higher because women are exploited, and that their getting equal pay must invariably come from my own paycheck, why the fuck would I argue with you or fight for women's rights? I'm not female and I have no intention or desire to make any transsexual transition to identifying as a woman. I'm not in any relationships with women, so I can't even claim that their purchasing power helps my household. I likewise have no daughters.
Why the fuck would I care? Why the fuck would I hurt myself on this issue? It's almost like I'm not a financial computer and have ideals and desires that go beyond personal economic gain. Imagine that.
I'm not just trying to play myself up as some sort of saint, though. I could easily imagine me growing up in the sexist, racist, bigoted environment of my father's side of the family, and hurting myself just as much economically to hurt people because they're 'different'. I don't even need much in the way of proof, all I have to do is attend any family function and listen to these people.
I'm sorry, but your idea that the world will magically fix things because the world is magically fair, is, probably the stupidest idea I've ever ran across.
Gorfias: I believe in pay for performance, not genetics.
Then why do you look at a woman and decide she deserves less pay before she's even done the job?
Not lazy, but having many different priorities that affect their value in the market. You appear to think too little of women.
What priorities? And please do not tell me what my opinion of women is.
Scary, you've done all this study and haven't noticed: women have babies. Those babies are very often a priority over work for the mom. This was not so in my case, I was primary on child care and guess what: my career took a major hit. This doesn't mean I'm "inferior". It just means that the choices I've made have a market impact.
And the idea that some women either don't want children or all their children are grown up never occurred to you?
1) ...sexism, bigotry, racism, ageism, etc. has never benefited society...
2) ...You seem to think people some sort of all knowing, totally informed economic calculator robots that will do only things that benefit them financially, and yet reality clearly shows that's not even remotely true.
1) I'm sure it greatly benefited individuals and individual groups in a society. Injustice is a real phenomenon. Agreed? 2) I think the vast majority of today's business are cold and bloodless and profit seeking enough to want to cut their HR costs 30% by replacing men with women if that was all it takes.
If it was, as you said, that my pay rate is only higher because women are exploited,
I wrote that? I dont' think so. If I did, I miswrote. I think men EARN $1.15 and women EARN $0.85. To make that even, you are going to have to, in the long run, not a direct transfer, but in the over-all economy, you're going to have to transfer $0.15 from a man who earned it to a woman who didn't. You can argue social utility to this: richer women can consume more keeping society running better. But by traditional measures of justice, it is exploitation.
I'm sorry, but your idea that the world will magically fix things because the world is magically fair, is, probably the stupidest idea I've ever ran across.
I guess you will just disregard those front page magazine story's stating we can expect women to start out-earning men shortly (they also argue that when that happens, there is good in it for men). No government involvement necessary.
Gorfias: I believe in pay for performance, not genetics.
Then why do you look at a woman and decide she deserves less pay before she's even done the job?
To the extent that this is happening, such a woman could likely, on her own, be a grown up and turn down an offer she thinks is short. Ask for more. My current job pays 40% more than offering because I said I was interested, just not at that pay.
Not lazy, but having many different priorities that affect their value in the market. You appear to think too little of women.
What priorities? And please do not tell me what my opinion of women is.
For starters, they appear to want shorter commutes on average than men. This means they aren't responding with the flexibility of men. They may trade a lesser wage for a job closer to home. (Hence, why the woman may not turn down a job offered at lower pay as reviewed above).
Scary, you've done all this study and haven't noticed: women have babies. Those babies are very often a priority over work for the mom. This was not so in my case, I was primary on child care and guess what: my career took a major hit. This doesn't mean I'm "inferior". It just means that the choices I've made have a market impact.
And the idea that some women either don't want children or all their children are grown up never occurred to you?[/quote]
My kids are almost grown and are starting to not need me as much anymore. In the past 15 years or so, I've worked about 40 hours a week. My wife, for about 12 of those years worked 60-70 hours a week. She is now near the height of her profession. She now makes more than she ever has before and is working LESS hours. In those 12 years of 65 hour work weeks, she gained an incredible amount of valuable experience. Were I to walk into a similar job opening and they grilled me about my qualifications, even were I to get the same exact position, "doing the same work" there is no way I 'd be able to match her performance. To think otherwise is to denigrate the very concept of experience as being valuable.
Gorfias: If a woman EARNS 75 cents and a man EARNS $1.25 at a time in which they have the same employment position, under laws like ERA or LL, a court may order what will, in effect, be a transfer of $0.25 from the male to the female. It will happen, and it will be unjust (unless you are a radical egalitarian, each according to ability, etc...)
Uhm, you're aware that equal pay would mean $ 1,25 for both, right? Ignoring for a moment that that's even below the ridiculously low American minimum wage. One-sided redefining of labour contracts to the disadvantage of the worker is always a breach of contract.
I'd be surprised if the drastic cuts on education the republicans support would be a net gain for students though. They may promise loan interests stay the same, and that may not even be a lie, but that's not to say students will not be worse off with the republicans in power.
Actually, with their history of hostility towards education and their repeated promises of deep cuts into all branches of government including education, that's something that sounds quite unlikely.
Gorfias: To the extent that this is happening, such a woman could likely, on her own, be a grown up and turn down an offer she thinks is short. Ask for more. My current job pays 40% more than offering because I said I was interested, just not at that pay.
Because of course, that's always an option that everybody has. Especially in the middle of a recession.
For starters, they appear to want shorter commutes on average than men. This means they aren't responding with the flexibility of men. They may trade a lesser wage for a job closer to home. (Hence, why the woman may not turn down a job offered at lower pay as reviewed above).
Proof?
My kids are almost grown and are starting to not need me as much anymore. In the past 15 years or so, I've worked about 40 hours a week. My wife, for about 12 of those years worked 60-70 hours a week. She is now near the height of her profession. She now makes more than she ever has before and is working LESS hours. In those 12 years of 65 hour work weeks, she gained an incredible amount of valuable experience. Were I to walk into a similar job opening and they grilled me about my qualifications, even were I to get the same exact position, "doing the same work" there is no way I 'd be able to match her performance. To think otherwise is to denigrate the very concept of experience as being valuable.
That's a nice story, but how does it address my question?
For starters, they appear to want shorter commutes on average than men. This means they aren't responding with the flexibility of men. They may trade a lesser wage for a job closer to home. (Hence, why the woman may not turn down a job offered at lower pay as reviewed above).
Proof?
Old news. Men also spend more time commuting to work, with a median commute that is 20 percent longer (24 minutes for men versus 20 minutes for women).
My kids are almost grown and are starting to not need me as much anymore. In the past 15 years or so, I've worked about 40 hours a week. My wife, for about 12 of those years worked 60-70 hours a week. She is now near the height of her profession. She now makes more than she ever has before and is working LESS hours. In those 12 years of 65 hour work weeks, she gained an incredible amount of valuable experience. Were I to walk into a similar job opening and they grilled me about my qualifications, even were I to get the same exact position, "doing the same work" there is no way I 'd be able to match her performance. To think otherwise is to denigrate the very concept of experience as being valuable.
That's a nice story, but how does it address my question?
You asked what if women are no longer caring for kids. My experience: the impact to one's earning potential is still there. And I think I've been lucky. And I still worked full time. What about women who spend from age 25 to 45 in the home? You have to believe that has an impact.
Gorfias: Old news. Men also spend more time commuting to work, with a median commute that is 20 percent longer (24 minutes for men versus 20 minutes for women).
None of that really proved that's why women get paid less. There was also this part toward the end:
On the other hand, on a few other subjective dimensions of their jobs, men still seem to be better off than women.
For example, 19.4 percent of women said their job is "extremely stressful," compared to 14.9 for men.
I was also surprised to find that men report having more flexible schedules than women.
Since women are still more likely to be the primary caregivers in their families, I would have guessed that they would be more likely to gravitate toward jobs that offered very flexible hours. Women are more likely to work fewer hours to begin with, though, so maybe the length of the workweek matters when it comes to planning absences.
So it actually looks like things are still stacked against them.
You asked what if women are no longer caring for kids. My experience: the impact to one's earning potential is still there. And I think I've been lucky. And I still worked full time. What about women who spend from age 25 to 45 in the home? You have to believe that has an impact.
Earning potential is only one factor of many in determining how much money you're making.
Gorfias: Old news. Men also spend more time commuting to work, with a median commute that is 20 percent longer (24 minutes for men versus 20 minutes for women).
None of that really proved that's why women get paid less.
Yes it does.
There was also this part toward the end:
On the other hand, on a few other subjective dimensions of their jobs, men still seem to be better off than women.
For example, 19.4 percent of women said their job is "extremely stressful," compared to 14.9 for men.
I was also surprised to find that men report having more flexible schedules than women.
Since women are still more likely to be the primary caregivers in their families, I would have guessed that they would be more likely to gravitate toward jobs that offered very flexible hours. Women are more likely to work fewer hours to begin with, though, so maybe the length of the workweek matters when it comes to planning absences.
So it actually looks like things are still stacked against them.
What that shows is that women complain more than men. In his book, "The Myth of Male Power" Warren Farrel claims that of the 25 worst, most dangerous jobs in the USA, men comprise something like 95% of the workers. The only job on that list ranking among the worst where women had parrity with men was professional dancer. (Ballet dancers are expected to be too skinny, hurt their joints, employment levels and pay suck.)
You asked what if women are no longer caring for kids. My experience: the impact to one's earning potential is still there. And I think I've been lucky. And I still worked full time. What about women who spend from age 25 to 45 in the home? You have to believe that has an impact.
Earning potential is only one factor of many in determining how much money you're making.
Half the population would not become 2nd class citizens if a woman got paid for doing the same work as her male coworkers. Please stop with the exaggerations.