Do women make less than men?

[Woodruff]

I think having a bust of Pericles as my avatar is pretentious enough. Plus that cat is more cute than pretentious.

I'm pretty sure that isn't Pericles any more. But I could be wrong.

[thegreekdog]

I think having a bust of Pericles as my avatar is pretentious enough. Plus that cat is more cute than pretentious.

I'm pretty sure that isn't Pericles any more. But I could be wrong.

Honestly? I think I'm losing my mind.

[Woodruff]

I think having a bust of Pericles as my avatar is pretentious enough. Plus that cat is more cute than pretentious.

I'm pretty sure that isn't Pericles any more. But I could be wrong.

Honestly? I think I'm losing my mind.

Yes, honestly. It USED to be the bust of Pericles. But I don't see that any more. Now I see an image of someone I believe was a Central/South American dictator/revolutionary, though his name is completely escaping me at the moment.

[AndyDufresne]

Honestly? I think I'm losing my mind.

Never should have let you out of the Retirement Community.


--Andy

[thegreekdog]

I think having a bust of Pericles as my avatar is pretentious enough. Plus that cat is more cute than pretentious.

I'm pretty sure that isn't Pericles any more. But I could be wrong.

Honestly? I think I'm losing my mind.

Yes, honestly. It USED to be the bust of Pericles. But I don't see that any more. Now I see an image of someone I believe was a Central/South American dictator/revolutionary, though his name is completely escaping me at the moment.

No, I was agreeing with you (jeez). I'm saying I'm losing my mind. I guess I should change it back.

It's Che Guerra. He was a communist revolutionary. Kids in the US like to purchase t-shirts with his likeness (presumably to make a point). The caption is "This T-shirt Brought to you by Capitalism." Which is the point I'm making (or whatever).

[General Brock II]

according to this http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0763170.html as recently as 2009 women made about 77 cents for every dollar men did.

This times article seems to back them up citing census data.

http://www.time.com/time/nation/article ... 85,00.html

When you go beyond just the pay the exact or very similar jobs get, it is much worse. Jobs that are traditionally women's pay less just from the outset.

Just as an example, a cook in the local hospital makes just $10 an hour, but even the lowest skilled maintenance person makes over $15.00. (the lawn mower, painter).

A supply clerk, who basically just takes in/checks shipping items and brings them to the appropriate department began at $10.00 and was full time. A food service person starts at minimum wage, though in many ways the job is actually more skilled (can include cooking, checking inventories as well as cleaning using hazardous chemicals- particularly to clean the fryer and grill).

Elementary and secondary school teachers are notoriously among lower paid but high skilled/demanding jobs.

Players, I would suggest that you view this topic in an objective manner. You obviously feel very strongly that there is such a thing as a "glass ceiling" and apparently believe that women are actively? discriminated against in the workplace. You've even gone so far as to state that men label women who might be demanding or ostentatious (but not the other way around).

As for my working experience, I've noticed very little of what you assert. As an example, did you realize that the head librarian in the Ottawa Public Library, Danielle McDonald, earns upward of $100,000 annually? Not only is she female, but she occupies, as you say, a position considered by contemporary society to be a "woman's career." The current Member of Parliament in my Riding is female (and most people quite appreciate that we have her).

And you make a food service person sound as if they're skilled and deserve more than minimum wage, but a person who deals with a hazardous lawn mower and lawn chemicals isn't just as at risk? I would disagree with wages and all that, but it would be pointless, as I live in Canada, and minimum wage is higher than $10.00 an hour. It's actually $10.25.

I certainly feel that anybody who works in the front line for a fast food establishment should earn nothing more than minimum wage plus whatever tips they receive. In contrast, lawn maintenance is usually a private contract, and it can be negotiated. When I was in the lawn care business, I would not operate for less than $20. per hour. That was my prerogative, and I built a loyal customer base on good quality work, though I'm sure I could have obtained numerous customers if I'd lowered my fee.

Don't forget, also, that women have entered the working force more recently, and there still aren't as many women in the workplace. This isn't due to discrimination - it's due to choice, circumstance or natural events. As such, if you average out the total earned by men verse women, of course the women's monetary amount earned is going to be about 23 cents!

Now what I find interesting is that certain women or men are not barred from pivotal jobs of civil service, such as police or firefighters. These organizations have to fill their quota with women and people of diverse ethnic origins, and so many officers or firefighters are women who are not big or as tough as many of the police males. Let me make myself clear, if I'm having an issue regarding violence, I don't care if a female officer answers the door - as long as she towers over me and sports enough muscle or weight to pound any felon into the pavement if need be. If she's five feet, two inches tall and weighs a mere 110 pounds, I'd prefer it if she gave me her taser and truncheon and let me take care of the felon. Or a firewoman of the same stature - is she going to be able to get me out of a burning building? But then a caucasian male from the academy with a clean record and weighing 220 is passed over because the department needed that petite female (to presumably fill the "quota")? That's not right...

I'll cap off here and anticipate your response.

[huamulan]

Fair enough. I inadvertently cut PLAYER's quote on half. The original post is still making a couple of assumptions though:

1) How do you know that few women are able to negotiate contract terms?
2) How do you know that a greater number of men have freedom to negotiate contract terms?

If I'm honest, I don't understand what your criteria are for 'freedom to negotiate' in the first place. Everyone is free to 'negotiate'. Before I accept a job I might write to my future employer and ask if they'll consider giving me some extra holiday in return for a modest pay cut. I'm now 'negotiating'. All men and all women are free to do this.

You're also assuming that just because I'm arguing against the presence of rampant sexism in the workplace that I must be a young man. Tsk.

[bedub1]

Of course men make more than women. More men are lawyers, women are secretaries. More men are surgeons, women are nurses. More men are congressmen, more women are teachers. There is nothing wrong with this situation.

Now when you compare identical jobs, there might be something wrong with men making more than women. But then you realize that men ask for more money, women ask for more time off. Men demand more money, women say "ok that's enough". There is nothing wrong with this situation.

Now if it's time for a promotion, and the boss promotes the man instead of the woman simply because he has a cock and two balls, that's wrong. On the same note though, I think it's okay to discriminate against women sometimes. Specifically, pregnant women in small business's. If a guy asked for 3 months off, he'd get fired. If a woman gets prego and demands 3 months off, it can destroy a business. You work, you get paid. You don't work, you get fired and somebody else takes your place. You CHOOSE to have a baby instead of going to work. That's YOUR problem.

[Mr_Adams]

Now what I find interesting is that certain women or men are not barred from pivotal jobs of civil service, such as police or firefighters. These organizations have to fill their quota with women and people of diverse ethnic origins, and so many officers or firefighters are women who are not big or as tough as many of the police males. Let me make myself clear, if I'm having an issue regarding violence, I don't care if a female officer answers the door - as long as she towers over me and sports enough muscle or weight to pound any felon into the pavement if need be. If she's five feet, two inches tall and weighs a mere 110 pounds, I'd prefer it if she gave me her taser and truncheon and let me take care of the felon. Or a firewoman of the same stature - is she going to be able to get me out of a burning building? But then a caucasian male from the academy with a clean record and weighing 220 is passed over because the department needed that petite female (to presumably fill the "quota")? That's not right...

My step dad was placed 9th on a list for fire training when he first started his career. There were 10 spots to be filled. #10 got bumped off to fit a black candidate in to fill Affirmative Action quotas. Now, it wasn't for a female, and physically there was no difference, but I'd say we agree that that person who got bumped off the list earned his position and was bumped off for somebody else's idea of "fairness".

Now when you compare identical jobs, there might be something wrong with men making more than women. But then you realize that men ask for more money, women ask for more time off. Men demand more money, women say "ok that's enough". There is nothing wrong with this situation.

The video I posted on page one talks about this. The labor statistics show that men and women in the same field have less than a 2% earning difference, instead of the 25% feminazis march about.

[Lootifer]

Fact or fake?

Its undoubtedly true.

But only a part of it is because of sexism.

[bedub1]

Now when you compare identical jobs, there might be something wrong with men making more than women. But then you realize that men ask for more money, women ask for more time off. Men demand more money, women say "ok that's enough". There is nothing wrong with this situation.

The video I posted on page one talks about this. The labor statistics show that men and women in the same field have less than a 2% earning difference, instead of the 25% feminazis march about.

I did not watch your video, but I believe it. And you have to make sure they are IDENTICAL positions, not just in the same field. Gradeschools are dominated by female teachers, while college professors are typically male.

[Lootifer]

Yeh but it get blurry fast when you then ask: Why are college professors typically males?

Also 2% is 2% more than it should be.

[BigBallinStalin]

My reason for asking is this video:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EwogDPh-Sow

you're in the wrong website.

Check out the links under that video.

[BigBallinStalin]

When negotiating remuneration packages, men are more likely to ask for higher pay and women are more likely to ask for extra holiday/flexible working.

Few women even HAVE jobs where they can negotiate anything.. try beginning there.

Women who, as you say "demand" things are "b*tches". Men who do the exact same or who are even outright jerks are just "asssertive" or "playing the game".

There are ways in which women are directly/indirectly discriminated against in various employment markets but it's bogus to suggest that bosses are sitting around thinking 'stupid woman let's pay her less'.

As long as people like to pretend that is what is being said by anyone.. nothing WILL change.

Let's examine this discussion structurally:

- huamulan makes a comparison (men ask for money, women ask for flexibility). He/she does not use the word "demand."
- Player interprets huamulan's statement to use the word "demand" rather than "ask" and once Player has seen huamulan's paragraph in that light, she feels empowered to say that women who "demand" are bitches and men who "demand" (note she did not use the term) are assertive.

- huamulan indicates that men don't discriminate against women directly (which I think is true).
- Player indicates that if people pretend it doesn't happen, nothing will change. I think Player misstated what she wanted to say. I think she wanted to agree with huamulan, but further explain that the lack of direct discrimination does not mean there is not any indirect discrimination.

Hey, thanks for the reiteration! Looks like PLAYER is still PLAYER.

[BigBallinStalin]

Anyway, questions:

Are women more likely than men to put their family before their careers somewhere down the line?

If such a statistical difference exists is it sexist for an employer to take it into account when making hiring decisions?

If there is such a statistical difference, then this will affect the expected productivity of the worker (Depending on the job). Therefore, it's appropriate for the employer to take this risk into account when hiring someone who is expected to leave the job to raise kids.

I wouldn't say that's being sexist. That's just being practical--if that conditional statement is true, of course.

[Army of GOD]

they make more sandwiches than men

oh god, the thread should've been locked after this post. Funniest post I've read in a while.

[Mr_Adams]

Yeh but it get blurry fast when you then ask: Why are college professors typically males?

Also 2% is 2% more than it should be.

Given the history of the united states, this is a wayning problem. Fact is, more men have been working in their fields longer, which earns them higher pay now. that's the 2%. In a few fields, the same factors make the 2% an advantage for the women.

[bedub1]

Yeh but it get blurry fast when you then ask: Why are college professors typically males?

Also 2% is 2% more than it should be.

Given the history of the united states, this is a wayning problem. Fact is, more men have been working in their fields longer, which earns them higher pay now. that's the 2%. In a few fields, the same factors make the 2% an advantage for the women.

No 2% is irrelevant. That's not the difference in the wages, that's the error in the survey. 2% is 0%. Even all the way up to 4% can be error in the survey.

[General Brock II]

Now when you compare identical jobs, there might be something wrong with men making more than women. But then you realize that men ask for more money, women ask for more time off. Men demand more money, women say "ok that's enough". There is nothing wrong with this situation.

The video I posted on page one talks about this. The labor statistics show that men and women in the same field have less than a 2% earning difference, instead of the 25% feminazis march about.

I did not watch your video, but I believe it. And you have to make sure they are IDENTICAL positions, not just in the same field. Gradeschools are dominated by female teachers, while college professors are typically male.

But then consider that the majority of College professors are aging gentlemen (of 50 years and up). Typically, the number of women in this age range who aspired to be scholars and professors at the university academic level is lower. However, I do think you will find that there is something of an "equilibrium" between the number of males and females of the younger generations. If this isn't so, then it's because of interests alone - many women enjoy working with younger children. Whereas men can't stand younger children. They bother us.

[bedub1]

Now when you compare identical jobs, there might be something wrong with men making more than women. But then you realize that men ask for more money, women ask for more time off. Men demand more money, women say "ok that's enough". There is nothing wrong with this situation.

The video I posted on page one talks about this. The labor statistics show that men and women in the same field have less than a 2% earning difference, instead of the 25% feminazis march about.

I did not watch your video, but I believe it. And you have to make sure they are IDENTICAL positions, not just in the same field. Gradeschools are dominated by female teachers, while college professors are typically male.

But then consider that the majority of College professors are aging gentlemen (of 50 years and up). Typically, the number of women in this age range who aspired to be scholars and professors at the university academic level is lower. However, I do think you will find that there is something of an "equilibrium" between the number of males and females of the younger generations. If this isn't so, then it's because of interests alone - many women enjoy working with younger children. Whereas men can't stand younger children. They bother us.

Exactly! Guys want to teach adults, women love being around little kids. This leads to a different in income. If women have a problem with it, then stop being gradeschool teachers and be college professors. They bitch about the system, they bitch about discrimination, but in actually the problem is their own.

[AndyDufresne]

Exactly! Guys want to teach adults, women love being around little kids. This leads to a different in income. If women have a problem with it, then stop being gradeschool teachers and be college professors. They bitch about the system, they bitch about discrimination, but in actually the problem is their own.

Yeah. They should take the initiative from a young age. Instead of being born with a vagina, will a penis.

It's how all the successful people do it.


--Andy

[bedub1]

Exactly! Guys want to teach adults, women love being around little kids. This leads to a different in income. If women have a problem with it, then stop being gradeschool teachers and be college professors. They bitch about the system, they bitch about discrimination, but in actually the problem is their own.

Yeah. They should take the initiative from a young age. Instead of being born with a vagina, will a penis.

It's how all the successful people do it.


--Andy

What? No, instead of going to college to get a teaching certificate to teach gradeschool, they should go to college and get their PHD and teach college.

[Woodruff]

Exactly! Guys want to teach adults, women love being around little kids. This leads to a different in income. If women have a problem with it, then stop being gradeschool teachers and be college professors. They bitch about the system, they bitch about discrimination, but in actually the problem is their own.

Yeah. They should take the initiative from a young age. Instead of being born with a vagina, will a penis.
It's how all the successful people do it.

--Andy

What? No, instead of going to college to get a teaching certificate to teach gradeschool, they should go to college and get their PHD and teach college.

Yes, they should definitely not do what they actually enjoy.

For what it's worth, I don't honestly hear nearly the complaints ("bitching" as you so eloquently put it) about this that I did "back in the day". I do believe that this as a problem has declined enormously just within my own job experience timeframe (since 1985), and I believe that most younger women in the workforce recognize that. That's not to say it isn't a problem in isolated instances...I have no doubt there are still highly sexist bosses...but I believe the desire for top talent, regardless of gender, has largely overridden this as a problem.

[Lootifer]

Yeh but it get blurry fast when you then ask: Why are college professors typically males?

Also 2% is 2% more than it should be.

Given the history of the united states, this is a wayning problem. Fact is, more men have been working in their fields longer, which earns them higher pay now. that's the 2%. In a few fields, the same factors make the 2% an advantage for the women.

No 2% is irrelevant. That's not the difference in the wages, that's the error in the survey. 2% is 0%. Even all the way up to 4% can be error in the survey.

Statistics would like a word with you...

[bedub1]

Yeh but it get blurry fast when you then ask: Why are college professors typically males?

Also 2% is 2% more than it should be.

Given the history of the united states, this is a wayning problem. Fact is, more men have been working in their fields longer, which earns them higher pay now. that's the 2%. In a few fields, the same factors make the 2% an advantage for the women.

No 2% is irrelevant. That's not the difference in the wages, that's the error in the survey. 2% is 0%. Even all the way up to 4% can be error in the survey.

Statistics would like a word with you...

Proof would like a word with you...

Often, an "acceptable" margin of error used by survey researchers falls between 4% and 8% at the 95% confidence level.

Click image to enlarge.