Do women make less than men?

[huamulan]

Please, explain to me exactly how you quoting my post and then saying 'all of which are things that many would call oppressive' is not you saying that the stuff I mentioned in the post is oppressive.

[PLAYER57832]

Please, explain to me exactly how you quoting my post and then saying 'all of which are things that many would call oppressive' is not you saying that the stuff I mentioned in the post is oppressive.

Begin with that is not what happened.

I said that what you describe is something many people would call oppressive, i.e. folks like Phattscotty, Nightstrike, etc.. all of whom have stated that exact opinion on many occasions. Recognizing opinion does not mean one has to share it.

Second, you picked out ONE attribute from the entire list, paternity pay, and its not really the most important factor (something I know because I have actually read quite a bit on the subject, know people who live in Sweden, etc.).

Thirdly, you ignored my reasoning entirely. Specifically, what makes Sweden work as it does is not because of some external program or laws, it is because that society is very homogeneous. The US is not.

You also have repeatedly made the mistake of assuming that my disagreement with your view of CEOs means I know nothing about them, am somehow just going off some kind of left wing rhetoric. I mean, claiming that CEOS don't get to negotiate their pay ... REALLY??? Try talking to a few. You will be highly enlightened. (hint.. I have).

You pretend that you are making sense, even while you have ignored most of what I actually said.

Yep... my guess is about 14 years old. (maturity, not cronology)

[huamulan]

The other item on the list was gender-neutral taxation. Is that your idea of 'oppression'? The very core reason Sweden is homogenous is its tax system - for centuries women and men, husbands and bachelors have all been treated in the same way by welfare and tax institutions. Have you ever been to Sweden?

As I said before (many pages ago, when you were ignoring my points), maybe CEOs in America get to do what they wish but most CEOs have to respond to market pressures, unions, the press and government. If they are working for a salary then they are very restricted in what they can and can't do. Don't tell me 'talk to a few', you fucking cretin. As I have already clearly explained my father was a CEO for many years.

Anyways, you can rant about gender discrimination all you want but as long as women like you continue to say 'I am married so I don't have to think about money' (in nietzsche's money thread) then there will always be some women who continue to live out the 1950s fairytale of womanhood.

[PLAYER57832]

The other item on the list was gender-neutral taxation. Is that your idea of 'oppression'? The very core reason Sweden is homogenous is its tax system - for centuries women and men, husbands and bachelors have all been treated in the same way by welfare and tax institutions. Have you ever been to Sweden?

In previous threads where the topic came up, Nightstrike, etc have very much said so. As I said, try actually reading, instead of just assuming. And yes, I have been to Sweden.

As I said before (many pages ago, when you were ignoring my points), maybe CEOs in America get to do what they wish but most CEOs have to respond to market pressures, unions, the press and government.

I replied that I was talking about US CEOS. However, bowing to pressure does not equivocate no negotiating. Having a set, standard contract for all employees of a specific job category does, even if that contract gets periodically negotiated by unions or changed by legislation.

If they are working for a salary then they are very restricted in what they can and can't do. Don't tell me 'talk to a few', you fucking cretin. As I have already clearly explained my father was a CEO for many years.

LOL, LOL

yep, swearing does make for such enlightened rhetoric. (LOL)
Funny how you accuse me of lack of information, using personal experience.. and then you turn around and say becuase your Dad was a CEO, and one a few decades back (when I already said things were very different, indeed) you obviously know more than I.

ays, you can rant about gender discrimination all you want but as long as women like you continue to say 'I am married so I don't have to think about money' (in nietzsche's money thread) then there will always be some women who continue to live out the 1950s fairytale of womanhood.

LOL, LOL, LOL

No, the reference was to having other things to think about.. the bedroom, specifically, but also kids. As a point of fact, most women, myself included, are the money managers in their households. You might know that if you had done more than spout off opinion without verification.

[BigBallinStalin]

France is secular and no religion (not Christianity, not Islam, not Rastafarianism) is allowed to be practiced or exhibited in public. A burkha counts as a religious symbol, and religious symbols aren't allowed to be displayed in public in France. Same as people aren't allowed to wear crosses.

Anyway, as I said before, there are different parties involved in discrimination. Some will benefit from reduced discrimination, some from increased discrimination. To some, the 'beneficial' change regarding discrimination is to maintain/increase it. For example, white people in southern USA prospered very nicely when black people were kept under-foot and in chains. I imagine it's far harder for straight white men to make a living in the USA now than it was in 1820, what with their competition (blacks, women, gays) being recognized as legitimate workers by mainstream society.

Describing France as secular overlooks the more oppressive aspects. That's a country which denies you the freedom to express your own religion and whatever other cultural customs--if they are deemed to be too religious.

Like I said, discrimination as it relates to this thread is bad, and I'd figure everyone would agree with me except for the racists, the bigots, and anyone else who views suppressing peoples' religions with the arm of the State as a good idea.


" I imagine it's far harder for straight white men to make a living in the USA now than it was in 1820, what with their competition (blacks, women, gays) being recognized as legitimate workers by mainstream society."
Think about it. What items are cheap today that aren't cheap or even available in the 1820s? Cellular phones, ovens, air conditioning, books, etc.

Your scenario would be a problem if the division of labor was not expanding, but it does expand, and new technology is created and developed, real prices fall in general, and standards of living have increased in the US since the 1820s. Given all that, then why don't we see an increased difficult for "straight white men to make a living in the USA now than it was in 1820"?

[Night Strike]

If you're going to say that I said something, quote me on saying it.


As to this topic, how many of these studies actually compare wages within a single company in a single city with people of the exact same qualifications, time of service, job performance, etc. doing the exact same job? Unless you're in a big-box store where you have tons of employees doing the same thing, why do businesses have multiple people doing the exact same jobs anyway? As soon as the studies start comparing positions that are filled with any of those variables being different, the results should be at minimum questioned and at worst thrown out/ignored as irrelevant. There are WAY too many variables at play to compare wages for every single person or even sector and call it proof of sexism, etc. Let the market place work out the pay rates and keep the government out of it. If a company is repeatedly paying women less than men, an informed public will make the choice as to whether or not they want to shop (or work) there. What are we supposed to do, build a pay chart for the entire nation to follow to lay out exactly what each job is supposed to be paid that way we know there's no differences in pay?

[Woodruff]

How sad for you. I think that 'oppressive' is exactly what you called those measures.

Try actually reading before responding instead of looking for affirmation of your pre-determined assumptions.

Is there a reason you're arguing with carpetman/barackattack? He's only trying to irritate you.

[PLAYER57832]

If you're going to say that I said something, quote me on saying it.

Fair enough.

As to this topic, how many of these studies actually compare wages within a single company in a single city with people of the exact same qualifications, time of service, job performance, etc. doing the exact same job?

Most of those studies do a pretty good job of that. Its not necessary to look at the exact same companies in all cases. What you need to do is stratify the groups so that the variations you describe are roughly uniform between the two groups. Its not exact, but done properly comes up with pretty good totals.

Unless you're in a big-box store where you have tons of employees doing the same thing, why do businesses have multiple people doing the exact same jobs anyway? As soon as the studies start comparing positions that are filled with any of those variables being different, the results should be at minimum questioned and at worst thrown out/ignored as irrelevant. There are WAY too many variables at play to compare wages for every single person or even sector and call it proof of sexism, etc. Let the market place work out the pay rates and keep the government out of it. If a company is repeatedly paying women less than men, an informed public will make the choice as to whether or not they want to shop (or work) there. What are we supposed to do, build a pay chart for the entire nation to follow to lay out exactly what each job is supposed to be paid that way we know there's no differences in pay?

The market place is EXTREMELY poor at deciding wages. That is what economics and history tell us. Its part of why slavery exists.

That said, I agree that draconian rules from above are not the answer. If the whole job market is made more responsive to real issues (as opposed to artificial manipulations of currencies, stocks and goods -- which is what we largely see today on a macro scale), then it will by its nature be more equitable for everyone, not just women.

The biggest problem is that when you leave things up to individual managers, they tend to decide that people like them are the most qualified or competent. That's not just discrimination, its plain bad for really making advancements. However, getting people to work well with those who are very different from them is a challenge. Too many just refuse to even try. That hurts everyone.

Teaching people to deal with those who are not exactly like us, on any front, benefits everyone. Teaching people to look beyond surface issues helps people to begin to make better decisions about things that really do matter.

[BigBallinStalin]

The market place is EXTREMELY poor at deciding wages.

1) How so?

and

2) Compared to what?

[thegreekdog]

The market place is EXTREMELY poor at deciding wages.

1) How so?

and

2) Compared to what?

Wow, I totally missed that one.

[Timminz]

Well of course women earn less than men. This is a capitalist society, and so each person is paid according to how much value they create. Women create less value, and are therefore worth less, than men, and so they earn less money.

It's not that difficult to grasp, is it?

[BigBallinStalin]

The market place is EXTREMELY poor at deciding wages.

1) How so?

and

2) Compared to what?

Wow, I totally missed that one.

I caught it because it was a freak accident. I read it, scrolled up, saw "PLAYERdfsfsadf," then thought, "no wonder; I usually ignore her posts."

[huamulan]

That's a country which denies you the freedom to express your own religion and whatever other cultural customs--if they are deemed to be too religious.

France takes 'secularism' to mean that religion has no place either in government or in general public life. If you want to be religious in France then you can be religion inside your home or place of worship.

If you wish to wear your burkha in the kitchen, the sitting room, the bedroom or even the garden... that is totally your choice and no one shall interfere!

[BigBallinStalin]

That's a country which denies you the freedom to express your own religion and whatever other cultural customs--if they are deemed to be too religious.

France takes 'secularism' to mean that religion has no place either in government or in general public life. If you want to be religious in France then you can be religion inside your home or place of worship.

If you wish to wear your burkha in the kitchen, the sitting room, the bedroom or even the garden... that is totally your choice and no one shall interfere!

"le sigh"

[huamulan]

We live our lives according to a different moral charter.

You must accept this.

[Mr_Adams]

The market place is EXTREMELY poor at deciding wages.

1) How so?

and

2) Compared to what?

Would still like to see a response to this...

[BigBallinStalin]

Me too, but it's not worth debating with her. Besides, ATM, I'm waiting for PLAYER to provide some sauce on her post about peak oil, the correlation between oil prices and USGDP growth rates, and some credible evidence on the impending environmental disaster of unknown magnitude at an unsure time.

I get the feeling that her response will be similar to her response to my above post.

[PLAYER57832]

The market place is EXTREMELY poor at deciding wages.

1) How so?

and

2) Compared to what?

Would still like to see a response to this...

Because eating and staying warm are fundamental needs. People who don't have full bellies, who are freezing will do a LOT of things just to get by.. its a big part of why slavery could persist. And, there are always people at the bottom who, for whatever reason, just cannot do well enough to get above the bottom. When the conditions are such that there actually is something close to "full" employment (aka the 80's -- where basically anyone who can "tie their shoelaces" and show up on time repeatedly without flipping off the boss will get work), why then we just brought in illegal workers who have even less choice.

When things begin to change (as they always do since perpetual long-term growth is impossible when resources are limited, as they are on Earth), then you simply pit people against each other, blame the illegals, blame the poor... keep on blaming anyone except those at the top. Keeps people too busy to organize and fight together for something more.

And, note, that while I refer to hunger and slavery, this same dynamic happens much further up the chain. Look at the number of unemployed people who are now working at much lower wages, often well outside their fields of training. The news media reports a lot on execs and middle managers, high end factory workers when they talk about this. I see it more in the "ology" fields (anything except medicine, energy production, computers, a couple of other exceptions). Despite all Nightstrike and Phattscotty like to rail against overpaid government employees, a lot of the misconceptions come because stats are based on things like job descriptions actually being real. when you get hired, though you find a little clause "other duties as assigned". That can mean that a PhD might have to clean the toilets (and perhaps legitimately, if a few people are working on a boat doing research together) OR It can mean that low level employees are given responsibilities and duties well beyond the GS-5 "standard" of that say something like "works under heavy superivision in projects without serious ramifications outside the office." I cannot say what I did under that title, mostly because it would identify me too closely.. and, well, I did have a clearance back then and even though I don't now, the restrictions don't go away. BUT.. I will say that I am published. And to be published in science means you had a significant part of some original research. Hardly a GS-5 classified duty! (note GS-5, sometimes 4 are the classic entry level for professional tracks. In most fields, they are permanent. However, in the "ologist" and natural resources they tend to be long term seasonal or temporary type positions).

[BigBallinStalin]

None of that is relevant to the questions.

[PLAYER57832]

None of that is relevant to the questions.

They are extremely relevant. They are precisely why the free market will never be a good judge of any but the higher end or most attractive job salaries.

[BigBallinStalin]

None of that is relevant to the questions.

They are extremely relevant. They are precisely why the free market will never be a good judge of any but the higher end or most attractive job salaries.

Player, you just posted an imaginary story about entire groups of people acting as single, homogenous decision-making entities in fictional circumstances. Then there's no answer to the "compared to what?" question.

Now, you've shifted from "the market" to "the free market." Earlier you said that the "the market place is EXTREMELY poor at deciding wages," but now you say, "the free market will never be a good judge of any but the higher end or most attractive job salaries."

Your thinking is inconsistent. You provide Conclusion A, create a story, and then declare that the story supports Conclusion B. What?!

With people like you, it doesn't matter what your conclusion really is, nor do the facts really matter. You already have these preconceived notions about the world, which is fine because we all do; however, with you, these ideas are unshakable. Anything contrary is shut out, and anything which supports your position is simply shoved in haphazardly. That's why you keep switching conclusions or continue fitting facts to support your ideology whenever it's convenient (and not on logical grounds).

[PLAYER57832]

None of that is relevant to the questions.

They are extremely relevant. They are precisely why the free market will never be a good judge of any but the higher end or most attractive job salaries.

Player, you just posted an imaginary story about entire groups of people acting as single, homogenous decision-making entities in fictional circumstances. Then there's no answer to the "compared to what?" question.

A group does not have to be homogenous to be a group with a group "need" or impact. The answer "compared to what" is "history".

Now, you've shifted from "the market" to "the free market." Earlier you said that the "the market place is EXTREMELY poor at deciding wages," but now you say, "the free market will never be a good judge of any but the higher end or most attractive job salaries."

Quibbling. In this context, the same thing.


and yeah.. I know, your arguments come straight out of the conservatopia instructions for debating those with whom you disagree.. aka "modern Machiavelli". Don't bother countering any real points, just change the subject, claim the answer is "not relevant", ask your own question to divert from the real focus, and begin debating the person, not the topic.

[BigBallinStalin]

You do realize that the government has influence on how the market sets prices, right? You can't look at an outcome created by the market and the government, and then declare that "the market place is EXTREMELY poor at deciding wages," or "the free market will never be a good judge of any but the higher end or most attractive job salaries."

(Those conclusions are extremely different. "market place" != "free market." "Deciding wages" != "[judging]... higher end or most attractive job salaries" (which are not the same thing as a wages). If you don't understand these differences, then it's pointless to continue any discussion about matters which you obviously do not understand because you clearly think that these two conclusions are "in this context, the same thing." Sorry, but these words have different meanings. Maybe not in your "context" or "imagination," but in the real world, there's differences in the meaning of these words.)


Shouldn't you be clear and consistent in your thinking? If yes, then why look at an outcome and solely blame it on the market without considering other factors?

[Mr_Adams]

None of that is relevant to the questions.

They are extremely relevant. They are precisely why the free market will never be a good judge of any but the higher end or most attractive job salaries.

You completely ignore the fact that limited resources also demand that buisness hire based on productivity margins. If I can't hire you at a wage that I can make a profit on your employment in some way, I don't hire you. In fact, the market is the ONLY reasonable way to determine wages, because it determines what the labor in question is worth. The only times we have these massive slow downs in the economy is when government created bubbles (Nasdaq, .com, housing, now education) burst. Human beings are nowhere near the capacity of Earth's resources, no matter what the hippies say, so your limited resources argument is meaningless as well.

[Phatscotty]

If women were paid less than men, greedy corporations who only care about their bottom line would not hire any men...