Post Reply
Page 1 of 9  •  1 2 3 4 5 6 ... 9 Next
Switch to Forum Live View discrimination does still continue to exist
3 years ago  ::  Apr 30, 2012 - 5:48AM #1
Kwinters
Posts: 22,912

''...Stark pay differences between men and women remain in this country....And while critics of the movement for pay equity often dismiss the gender pay gap as one due completely to occupational and lifestyle choices, a rigorous analysis of data by labor economists Francine Blau and Lawrence Kahn found that over 40 percent of the pay gap cannot be explained by such differences, concluding that “there is evidence that…discrimination does still continue to exist.”


But the gender pay gap isn’t just an issue of fairness. It is also a question of economic empowerment, both for working women and for their families. In 2010 the median full-time working man took home $47,715 in earnings, while the median full-time working woman made only $36,931—77.4 percent of that amount, or $10,784 less.


Because of this gap women working full time are able to afford less education, housing, transportation, food, and health care for themselves and their families than their male counterparts. As a result women and female-headed households are more likely to be in poverty and less likely to have health insurance. The pay gap translates into a significant economic disadvantage for women and their families, especially when nearly two-thirds (63.9 percent) of women are now either the primary breadwinner or a co-breadwinner, bringing home at least 25 percent of their family’s income...''



www.americanprogress.org/issues/2012/04/...


**********************************************************************



Republican voters: how do we fix the economic inequality American women face?





Jesus had two dads, and he turned out alright.~ Andy Gussert

“Feminism has fought no wars. It has killed no opponents. It has set up no concentration camps, starved no enemies, practiced no cruelties. Its battles have been for education, for the vote, for better working conditions…for safety on the streets…for child care, for social welfare…for rape crisis centers, women’s refuges, reforms in the law.

If someone says, “Oh, I’m not a feminist,” I ask, “Why, what’s your problem?”

Dale Spender
Quick Reply
Cancel
3 years ago  ::  Apr 30, 2012 - 9:49AM #2
Bodean
Posts: 9,836

Apr 30, 2012 -- 5:48AM, Kwinters wrote:


''...Stark pay differences between men and women remain in this country....And while critics of the movement for pay equity often dismiss the gender pay gap as one due completely to occupational and lifestyle choices, a rigorous analysis of data by labor economists Francine Blau and Lawrence Kahn found that over 40 percent of the pay gap cannot be explained by such differences, concluding that “there is evidence that…discrimination does still continue to exist.”


But the gender pay gap isn’t just an issue of fairness. It is also a question of economic empowerment, both for working women and for their families. In 2010 the median full-time working man took home $47,715 in earnings, while the median full-time working woman made only $36,931—77.4 percent of that amount, or $10,784 less.


Because of this gap women working full time are able to afford less education, housing, transportation, food, and health care for themselves and their families than their male counterparts. As a result women and female-headed households are more likely to be in poverty and less likely to have health insurance. The pay gap translates into a significant economic disadvantage for women and their families, especially when nearly two-thirds (63.9 percent) of women are now either the primary breadwinner or a co-breadwinner, bringing home at least 25 percent of their family’s income...''



www.americanprogress.org/issues/2012/04/...


**********************************************************************



Republican voters: how do we fix the economic inequality American women face?






OH .. it's simple KW .... you include it in the contract.


OK .. so you want to climb the company ladder?? .. you want to become that high level manager?? .. it's simple ... get sterilized so there is no threat to your performance from mommy issues, or time off to take care of jr, or even have jr, ... and then you will be a candidate.


Ya see ... in order to achieve those highest paying positions, you have to have the continued experience to attain it.  Taking a few years off to raise jr, puts you back at the starting line on the experience front.  In the meantime, your male couterpart, who doesn't get off for materinity leave, and who generally does not get off to go to the school functions, etc .. is building an experience resume that most women "choose" not to build.


There is no justice in hiring and paying a person just because they are female.  That's is as much discrimination as what you think exists .. in fact, more so.


Babies and hardball business don't mix well.  Sorry, it is just a fact of life.  Having babies robs women who choose to have them from gaining the competitive edge in the market place, and there is no justice in accounting for babies in the scenario just so women can compete, as having children is a choice.


It's a tough luck scenario.  Most Career oriented women put off having children until their later years .. which puts that baby right slap dab in the middle of the period where their best chance of higher achievement happens [ie., years with company, networking, experience, etc ..]  But bam, they have the baby, and they go back to the starting line.

Quick Reply
Cancel
3 years ago  ::  Apr 30, 2012 - 9:59AM #3
TENAC
Posts: 27,706

K,


You and most feminists over the past 30 or so years have been determined to have it all.  When you began to realize it was an impossibility (see Bo's post), now you have determined it is time to legislate it.


I think I have that right.

Any man can count the seeds in an apple....
.......but only God can count the apples in the seeds.
Quick Reply
Cancel
3 years ago  ::  Apr 30, 2012 - 10:27AM #4
Ironhold
Posts: 11,670

I have yet to see a study that factors in for things like:


*men being more likely to work overtime


*men being less likely to take vacations


*men being more aggressive in regards to demanding pay raises


*men being less likely to take time off for child-rearing


*men being more likely to accept dangerous jobs


All of those I mentioned result in either increased pay or increased time-in-position.

Quick Reply
Cancel
3 years ago  ::  Apr 30, 2012 - 10:29AM #5
Bodean
Posts: 9,836

Apr 30, 2012 -- 9:59AM, TENAC wrote:


K,


You and most feminists over the past 30 or so years have been determined to have it all.  When you began to realize it was an impossibility (see Bo's post), now you have determined it is time to legislate it.


I think I have that right.





As with all special interests groups .. they are not interested in "equality" .. they are interested in PREFERENTIAL TREATMENT!


KW forgets .. there ARE Women, who've attained the highest levels and they make the highest pay ... but in the "averages", not as many women choose that path, and therefore, their "average pay" is less. 


Men on the otherhand ... have no choice.  We don't have babies ... can't have babies, thus, it is a non-issue.  Our job is to bring home the bacon, while mommy takes off, or gets a "flexible" job that will allow her to attend all those special moments that fathers generally miss out on.


Of course .. .I know a few cases where the roles are reversed.  I know a Doctor who is a woman, and her hubby sees to the kids needs.


To be fair, women do make less starting out.  But again, this is because of the "risk" one takes in investing in future talent.  A woman is more likely to drop out of the labor force than a man.  Women are more likely to switch to part time flex positions than men.  Women are more likely to require more time off for parenting than men.


It all becomes an ROI scenario .. which is why I said in my first post .. if you really want to climb that ladder, then sign an agreement that you will not have kids.  Women will have to put themselves on the same plane as men if they want to be treated as an equal investment.

Quick Reply
Cancel
3 years ago  ::  Apr 30, 2012 - 10:30AM #6
amcolph
Posts: 18,289

Notice the egregious assumption by both TENAC and Bodean that we are talking about boss class jobs here.


Most of the worst incidences of workplace discrimination, sexual harassment and pay inequality are imposed on women in blue and pink collar jobs.


 

This post contains no advertisements or solicitations.
Quick Reply
Cancel
3 years ago  ::  Apr 30, 2012 - 11:15AM #7
Bodean
Posts: 9,836

Apr 30, 2012 -- 10:30AM, amcolph wrote:


Notice the egregious assumption by both TENAC and Bodean that we are talking about boss class jobs here.


Most of the worst incidences of workplace discrimination, sexual harassment and pay inequality are imposed on women in blue and pink collar jobs.


 





Amcoph ... it doesn't matter if it is a boss class job, or a line worker ... ROI considerations are always at work.


ALL enterprises view each new hirer as a "potential" leadership.  That leadership could be as simple as a team leader, the senior grunt that all the new grunts run to for advice, .. or as complex as the next Senior Vice President.  In either case, "on average", men make sounder investments than do women.  Just as we see in investment, higher sums are generally invested in safer investments, whereas lower sums are invested in the higher risk investments.


Training , etc cost money.  When an employer hires a person, they are taking a risk, they are investing in that individual.  Given that: ...Women are more likely to drop out of the work force than men, .. and Women are more likely to need more time off for other reasons than men ... and Women are less mobil within the company as well as geographically than men ... they are not as attractive as a potential long term investment.


Promoted jobs have more demands.  The mid-level promotion job may interfere with a woman being able to take off to watch her child get an award at school.  Thus, she is less likely to apply.  Thus, she becomes of less value in terms of future potential.  Since you can't tell which woman is just looking for income, vs the ambitious woman who wants to be a senior vice president, ALL women are treated as potential risk.  As such, ALL women are less valuable as new hires than men.

Quick Reply
Cancel
3 years ago  ::  Apr 30, 2012 - 11:48AM #8
amcolph
Posts: 18,289

Apr 30, 2012 -- 11:15AM, Bodean wrote:

  As such, ALL women are less valuable as new hires than men.




Even in low level jobs with minimal training requirements and equal turnover of both men and women, right?  Especially in jobs like that you can get away with paying the women less and maybe they will even be desperate enough to give you a blow job for it.


Yes, we can see where you are coming from on this one, with all of your lofty fantasies about ROI.

This post contains no advertisements or solicitations.
Quick Reply
Cancel
3 years ago  ::  Apr 30, 2012 - 12:09PM #9
Girlchristian
Posts: 11,702

Apr 30, 2012 -- 11:48AM, amcolph wrote:


Apr 30, 2012 -- 11:15AM, Bodean wrote:

  As such, ALL women are less valuable as new hires than men.




Even in low level jobs with minimal training requirements and equal turnover of both men and women, right?  Especially in jobs like that you can get away with paying the women less and maybe they will even be desperate enough to give you a blow job for it.


Yes, we can see where you are coming from on this one, with all of your lofty fantasies about ROI.




I don't think that's fair. Even in the low paying, minimal requirement jobs, women tend to take off work more when children are sick or have school functions, they're the ones that go on maternity leave, and they're the ones that ask for more flexibility in schedule. If one makes that choice then one has to accept lower pay. Many women gladly make that choice.

"No matter how dark the moment, love and hope are always possible." George Chakiris

“For those who believe, no proof is necessary. For those who don't believe, no proof is possible.” Stuart Chase
Quick Reply
Cancel
3 years ago  ::  Apr 30, 2012 - 12:27PM #10
amcolph
Posts: 18,289

Apr 30, 2012 -- 12:09PM, Girlchristian wrote:


 


I don't think that's fair. Even in the low paying, minimal requirement jobs, women tend to take off work more when children are sick or have school functions, they're the ones that go on maternity leave, and they're the ones that ask for more flexibility in schedule. If one makes that choice then one has to accept lower pay. Many women gladly make that choice.




All right, let's get down to basics.  Bodean's position is that employers are always justified in paying a man more than a woman for the same work.


Let's say I go over to the Home Depot parking lot where day laborers gather.  There I find a group of men and women waiting to be hired for a day's work they are all equally capable of doing.  If I hire a woman rather than a man for the day's work, and she performs it, why am I justified in paying her less?


And don't blow me a lot of smoke about ROI or time off for school functions or any of that other self-serving crap.

This post contains no advertisements or solicitations.
Quick Reply
Cancel
Page 1 of 9  •  1 2 3 4 5 6 ... 9 Next
 
    Viewing this thread :: 0 registered and 1 guest
    No registered users viewing
    Advertisement

    Beliefnet On Facebook