rEvolutionist wrote:Forty Two wrote:rEvolutionist wrote:Forty Two wrote:
Haven't. Overall, when compared job to job, experience to experience, hours worked to hours worked - the pay is about the same. I've provided a mountain of evidence supporting that.
No you haven't.
And I posted the analysis of data in Australia that tracked the move through upper management of males vs childless females that showed that females fall behind significantly.
Oh, well, Australia - you need to join the civilized world. Here in the US, the data shows near equality when controlled for job-for-job comparison, etc. When comparing like for like, the pay is the same for the same job, hours worked, experience, etc. There is serious legal penalty for discrimination here in the US. If a company paid women less for the same job, they not only can be easily sued directly (and have to disclose their payroll records across the board so that comparisons can be made), but the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission will do that for an employee for free - file a cost-free complaint with the EEOC, and they will review the payroll records for the previous three years and see if there is any discrimination going on.
This is the point I keep trying to make about how naive your arguments are. Just because there are laws doesn't mean that the illegal behaviour all of a sudden doesn't exist. And we have the same laws in Australia, and have far stronger workplace protections than the US. There's no reason to think the same pay disparity doesn't happen in the US, particularly given you have worse workplace protections than us. A reason would be if you would actually post the data, but you haven't and you won't, because you are too butthurt to go look for it.
There is no proof that the pay disparity, job for job, does exist in the US, and the evidence that we have demonstrates near equal salaries/wages for the same job. In regard to discrimination, the US has among the best protections in the world. You can't fire someone based on sex. You can't pay them different based on sex. I have already posted the data that the wage gap is based on total full time wages of men as compared to total full time wages of women without controlling for like-job-to-like job -- when comparing same job to same job, the gap disappears. See Harvard Professor of Economics Claudia Goldin, and Professor Christina Hoff-Sommers of the American Enterprise Institute. It's a myth that won't die.
http://www.wsj.com/articles/the-wage-ga ... 1443654408
rEvolutionist wrote:
rEvolutionist wrote:
Another thing I realised about the 73 cents pay gap thing the other day, thanks to a feminist speaker, was that this results in women retiring with less all thanks to them doing the most vital job for a society - bearing and raising children.
The figure trotted out in the US is 77 cents, not 73 cents. Maybe in Oz it's 73, I don't know.
I was guestimating. I don't know what it is in Oz. It's probably in the same vicinity.
That figure is dividing total full time earnings of women by the total full time earnings of men, not controlled for different job choices, hours worked, time off, etc. We know that women and men choose different careers. The feminist argument is that women's choices are undervalued, and secretaries should be paid the same as lawyers, and the reason their not is that women's traditional career choices are undervalued. But, that's horseshit. Women lawyer employees make what men make, by and large.
You can't compare doctors and nurse salaries. And, if more women go into pediatrics (which pays less than say, cardiology and neurosurgery, and more men go into those fields) you're going to have a nondiscriminatory pay disparity.
There is no proof that men and women are not, overall, paid about the same for the same job given the same experience level. It may happen in some industries, like female porn stars making way more than what male porn stars make, and female strippers making way more than male strippers, and male basketball players making more than female basketball players, that kind of thing. But, overall, this is not a discrimination issue. If you think you have proof of discrimination, then provide it. You haven't, so stuff your response that "you've already provided it." You have not.
rEvolutionist wrote:
But, the 77 cents figure in the US is a comparison between full time male employees and full time female employees -- it does not control for the same job. In other words, things like "hours worked" are not controlled for in that 77 cent number. That is, men work several hours more per week than women, and so since most workers in the US get overtime compensation and are paid by the hour, men will earn more than women because of that. The numbers also do not control for job choices -- when men take more dangerous or more demanding jobs that command a higher pay, and women tend in greater numbers to go for less dangerous and less demanding jobs what have lower pay but more flexibility -- the numbers will be different, but not because male secretaries and nurses are paid more than female secretaries and nurses. It's because most doctors are men, and most nurses are women -- that kind of thing.
the notion that a female engineer or lawyer goes to an engineering company or a law firm and is hired for 77 cents on the dollar for a male engineer or lawyer is flat out false - there is no evidence for it. At least not in the US.
This is all a total non-sequitur to the point I was making. The point I was making was that due to the less pay for women (for whatever reason), they end up retiring with less money than men. If they are part of a happily married couple, then it doesn't really matter. But if they are single or divorced, then it does matter. It means that women on average don't enjoy the same sort of financial freedom as men do in retirement. That's a systemic problem with gender equality.
Oh, well, then if they want to retire with more money, then they need to take jobs in in more demanding, higher paying fields, and work longer hours, like men do. If you want to be treated the same or equally, then paying nurses as much as doctors because women tend to go into nursing and men into medicine is not the way to create equality. Equality is male nurses getting paid the same as female nurses for the same job in the same field, working the same hours, with the same experience.
What do you want to do about these career choice issues? Make women work more hours? Make them take jobs in coal mining and over the road trucking? Require certain industries to increase wages because they happen to be industries women gravitate to as opposed to men?
This is not a "wage gap" you're talking about. It's an EARNINGS gap. And, if men work more hours than women at hourly jobs, and the US Bureau of Labor Statistics data says they do, then they will earn more money. If that results in women overall having less earnings over a lifetime, then that's not discrimination, and it's not even a problem.
rEvolutionist wrote:
There is no evidence that women are discriminated against.
Even if you grant that, which I don't, you still have to face the reality that the majority of positions of power in society (including politics) are occupied by men. In an equitable society, power would be shared roughly 50:50 men:women. That fact that it isn't in our societies points to a problem that needs to be addressed. That is, women are clearly being disadvantaged, what ever reason it might be - such as, social pressures, outright discrimination, or systemic discrimination.
In an equitable society, positions of political power would be exercised democratically, such that those who are most popular would be elected. This may not be 50-50 women to men. It may be 60-40 women to men, or vice versa -- depends who gets elected.
It's not "women are clearly being disadvantaged." If you claim they are disadvantaged then show how they are being disadvantaged. Saying that they aren't elected, or that they're not becoming engineers or coal minors as much as men is not evidence of a disadvantage. It's evidence of a difference.
If disparity like that were evidence of a disadvantage than the fact that women's earnings far exceed men's earnings in the adult movie industry would be evidence that men are disadvantaged. Obviously, it isn't.
“When I was in college, I took a terrorism class. ... The thing that was interesting in the class was every time the professor said ‘Al Qaeda’ his shoulders went up, But you know, it is that you don’t say ‘America’ with an intensity, you don’t say ‘England’ with the intensity. You don’t say ‘the army’ with the intensity,” she continued. “... But you say these names [Al Qaeda] because you want that word to carry weight. You want it to be something.” - Ilhan Omar
