Do women make less than men?

[saxitoxin]

I don't know what to tell you other than your personal experience doesn't constitute a trend.

No, in this case , while I did provide a personal example to illustrate what I am saying, but that was not the basis for what I was saying. Looks like I am going to have to dig up those article after all. One was in Forbes, I believe. Trouble is, I won't have the time for a few days and something tells me this topic will be buried by then.

yeah, I know - the usual

[huamulan]

I would still like some justification for the 'CEOs get to negotiate while janitors don't' comment.

Is that what happened when you last applied for a CEO position?

[BigBallinStalin]

I don't know what to tell you other than your personal experience doesn't constitute a trend.

No, in this case , while I did provide a personal example to illustrate what I am saying, but that was not the basis for what I was saying. Looks like I am going to have to dig up those article after all. One was in Forbes, I believe. Trouble is, I won't have the time for a few days and something tells me this topic will be buried by then.

Therefore, your personal example is irrelevant?

[PLAYER57832]

I don't know what to tell you other than your personal experience doesn't constitute a trend.

No, in this case , while I did provide a personal example to illustrate what I am saying, but that was not the basis for what I was saying. Looks like I am going to have to dig up those article after all. One was in Forbes, I believe. Trouble is, I won't have the time for a few days and something tells me this topic will be buried by then.

Therefore, your personal example is irrelevant?

No, its not the data upon which the statement is based. It IS an illustration of how this stuff happens, how the data came to be as it is.

Look, saying that women don't ask for more pay is just too simplistic, and is somewhat "blaming the victim". It can be roughly true when the "rubber hits the road" .. that is, in an interview, etc. However, why is that true? That is part of what I was trying to get at. Its not a simple answer. A lot of it IS, as I said earlier, that women, not just in the workplace, but throughout their lives, learn very early that to buck the guys leads to trouble. A boy who acts out is not reprimanded the way a girl is (boys are reprimanded more than boys, but are allowed to act out more before they are taken to task), etc, etc.

Maybe saying Janitor versus CEO was a poor choice. For one thing, most janitorial jobs are now contracted out and therefore are, to a point, negotiated. However, the vast majority of people get jobs with set salaries and benefits. The lower down the ranks you go, the more true that is. Negotiation is a luxury for some.


That women make less than men, that its not simply because they want fewer hours or the many other excuses provided above has been reported and discussed so widely it is no longer something needing a citation. Even so, here you go:
(I have picked articles that don't just report figures, but attempt to get at why they are as they are).

(From Time Magazine)
http://www.time.com/time/nation/article ... 85,00.html

http://www.usatoday.com/money/workplace ... nder_N.htm
a few other links were provided above.

But, its much easier to just claim any woman not getting a job is just incompetent, chose a "mommy track", etc....

[thegreekdog]

The TIME article uses the following phrase: "Ensuring an end to discrimination..." and yet offered no options. How does one ensure an end to discrimination?

[Symmetry]

The TIME article uses the following phrase: "Ensuring an end to discrimination..." and yet offered no options. How does one ensure an end to discrimination?

Seems to me like one of those examples of a worthy goal to work toward even if the goal is unreachable. I see the problem more as being that people who see the goal as impossible want to abandon all attempts toward it, or indeed to dismiss anything that might change the status quo.

[saxitoxin]

I don't know what to tell you other than your personal experience doesn't constitute a trend.

No, in this case , while I did provide a personal example to illustrate what I am saying, but that was not the basis for what I was saying. Looks like I am going to have to dig up those article after all. One was in Forbes, I believe. Trouble is, I won't have the time for a few days and something tells me this topic will be buried by then.

Therefore, your personal example is irrelevant?

No, its not the data upon which the statement is based. It IS an illustration of how this stuff happens, how the data came to be as it is.

Look, saying that women don't ask for more pay is just too simplistic, and is somewhat "blaming the victim". It can be roughly true when the "rubber hits the road" .. that is, in an interview, etc. However, why is that true? That is part of what I was trying to get at. Its not a simple answer. A lot of it IS, as I said earlier, that women, not just in the workplace, but throughout their lives, learn very early that to buck the guys leads to trouble. A boy who acts out is not reprimanded the way a girl is (boys are reprimanded more than boys, but are allowed to act out more before they are taken to task), etc, etc.

Maybe saying Janitor versus CEO was a poor choice. For one thing, most janitorial jobs are now contracted out and therefore are, to a point, negotiated. However, the vast majority of people get jobs with set salaries and benefits. The lower down the ranks you go, the more true that is. Negotiation is a luxury for some.


That women make less than men, that its not simply because they want fewer hours or the many other excuses provided above has been reported and discussed so widely it is no longer something needing a citation. Even so, here you go:
(I have picked articles that don't just report figures, but attempt to get at why they are as they are).

(From Time Magazine)
http://www.time.com/time/nation/article ... 85,00.html

http://www.usatoday.com/money/workplace ... nder_N.htm
a few other links were provided above.

But, its much easier to just claim any woman not getting a job is just incompetent, chose a "mommy track", etc....

You said you were going to provide articles that showed no one except a CEO can negotiate for salary and benefits. Were the links above said articles or are we still waiting on them?

[thegreekdog]

The TIME article uses the following phrase: "Ensuring an end to discrimination..." and yet offered no options. How does one ensure an end to discrimination?

Seems to me like one of those examples of a worthy goal to work toward even if the goal is unreachable. I see the problem more as being that people who see the goal as impossible want to abandon all attempts toward it, or indeed to dismiss anything that might change the status quo.

It is a worthy goal and one in which the government should not be involved.

[Symmetry]

The TIME article uses the following phrase: "Ensuring an end to discrimination..." and yet offered no options. How does one ensure an end to discrimination?

Seems to me like one of those examples of a worthy goal to work toward even if the goal is unreachable. I see the problem more as being that people who see the goal as impossible want to abandon all attempts toward it, or indeed to dismiss anything that might change the status quo.

It is a worthy goal and one in which the government should not be involved.

Seems like a weird point to be arguing when the government is a major employer.

[thegreekdog]

The TIME article uses the following phrase: "Ensuring an end to discrimination..." and yet offered no options. How does one ensure an end to discrimination?

Seems to me like one of those examples of a worthy goal to work toward even if the goal is unreachable. I see the problem more as being that people who see the goal as impossible want to abandon all attempts toward it, or indeed to dismiss anything that might change the status quo.

It is a worthy goal and one in which the government should not be involved.

Seems like a weird point to be arguing when the government is a major employer.

Oh you tricky devil you...

[Night Strike]

The TIME article uses the following phrase: "Ensuring an end to discrimination..." and yet offered no options. How does one ensure an end to discrimination?

Seems to me like one of those examples of a worthy goal to work toward even if the goal is unreachable. I see the problem more as being that people who see the goal as impossible want to abandon all attempts toward it, or indeed to dismiss anything that might change the status quo.

It is a worthy goal and one in which the government should not be involved.

Seems like a weird point to be arguing when the government is a major employer.

Which is hypocritical when some of the ones who keep vocally promoting this issue have some of the highest disparities in pay within their staff.

[BigBallinStalin]

It's a lofty goal which the government should adhere to in its own way while not imposing its methods onto others.

[Neoteny]

Does anyone else see King Hippo when Night Strike posts?

[Symmetry]

It's a lofty goal which the government should adhere to in its own way while not imposing its methods onto others.

I'm not sure if you're misunderstanding the idea of employment or misunderstanding the idea of government when you object to imposing methods.

[BigBallinStalin]

It's a lofty goal which the government should adhere to in its own way while not imposing its methods onto others.

I'm not sure if you're misunderstanding the idea of employment or misunderstanding the idea of government when you object to imposing methods.

Go on...

[saxitoxin]

It's a lofty goal which the government should adhere to in its own way while not imposing its methods onto others.

I'm not sure if you're misunderstanding the idea of employment or misunderstanding the idea of government when you object to imposing methods.

This statement seems to indicate you may have misunderstood the entire thread ...

[Symmetry]

It's a lofty goal which the government should adhere to in its own way while not imposing its methods onto others.

I'm not sure if you're misunderstanding the idea of employment or misunderstanding the idea of government when you object to imposing methods.

Go on...

Nah, that's about it- I've got no clue as to what you were trying to say. It wasn't even an argument I could support, oppose, or criticise. It was just weird, and any of the ways I tried to read it seemed like it was a flawed argument.

[saxitoxin]

I've got no clue as to what you were trying to say.

seems correct

[BigBallinStalin]

It's a lofty goal which the government should adhere to in its own way while not imposing its methods onto others.

I'm not sure if you're misunderstanding the idea of employment or misunderstanding the idea of government when you object to imposing methods.

Go on...

Nah, that's about it- I've got no clue as to what you were trying to say. It wasn't even an argument I could support, oppose, or criticise. It was just weird, and any of the ways I tried to read it seemed like it was a flawed argument.

It's a lofty goal (mitigating the effects of discriminatory practices such as sexism during employment, training, hiring, etc.) which the government should adhere to in its own way while not imposing its methods onto others.

Methods could include "we do X, Y, and Z to ensure that this discrimination doesn't happen." "Not imposing these methods onto others" means not imposing its own methods (X, Y, and Z) onto other businesses or people involved in hiring others, i.e. private sector, which would seek its own methods in achieving that lofty goal.

In other words, the government manages its own house. Anti-discriminatory laws only apply to the government; however, I am not opposed to the development of various anti-discrimination laws through common law, tort law, etc. which would only apply in each State (this is law that is not legislated; it's developed by the people and put into competition with other parishes or States). The "government" so far relates to the federal government, if you're confused about that too.

[BigBallinStalin]

It's a lofty goal which the government should adhere to in its own way while not imposing its methods onto others.

I'm not sure if you're misunderstanding the idea of employment or misunderstanding the idea of government when you object to imposing methods.

Go on...

Nah, that's about it- I've got no clue as to what you were trying to say. It wasn't even an argument I could support, oppose, or criticise. It was just weird, and any of the ways I tried to read it seemed like it was a flawed argument.

Just wondering, why are you so bitter on the Internet?

[Symmetry]

It's a lofty goal which the government should adhere to in its own way while not imposing its methods onto others.

I'm not sure if you're misunderstanding the idea of employment or misunderstanding the idea of government when you object to imposing methods.

Go on...

Nah, that's about it- I've got no clue as to what you were trying to say. It wasn't even an argument I could support, oppose, or criticise. It was just weird, and any of the ways I tried to read it seemed like it was a flawed argument.

It's a lofty goal (mitigating the effects of discriminatory practices such as sexism during employment, training, hiring, etc.) which the government should adhere to in its own way while not imposing its methods onto others.

Methods could include "we do X, Y, and Z to ensure that this discrimination doesn't happen." "Not imposing these methods onto others" means not imposing its own methods (X, Y, and Z) onto other businesses or people involved in hiring others, i.e. private sector, which would seek its own methods in achieving that lofty goal.

In other words, the government manages its own house. Anti-discriminatory laws only apply to the government; however, I am not opposed to the development of various anti-discrimination laws through common law, tort law, etc. which would only apply in each State (this is law that is not legislated; it's developed by the people and put into competition with other parishes or States). The "government" so far relates to the federal government, if you're confused about that too.

Why are you Americo-centric in your thinking? the government of individual American states is still government. If you oppose government intervention as a principle, say so. If you merely oppose the intervention of the US federal government in the affairs of US state governance, then make that clear.

As read, you sound like you oppose government while advocating a more complex and divisive form of government.

[PLAYER57832]

The TIME article uses the following phrase: "Ensuring an end to discrimination..." and yet offered no options. How does one ensure an end to discrimination?

That is the basic problem. But in this case, there are a good many who really don't want it to end.

From my perspective, I don't think the job market is truly equitable. Not in the sense that every child born has equal opportunity to succeed. On the other hand, creating such an environment would likely be very repressive. I do believe we can get a "happy median", have to a large extent gotten there, even though we are moving away from that ideal. The key is educational access. Our country prospered more because of our universal education system than from any other factor.

But part of education is about understanding and allowing differences. Its very tempting to say, for example, "let's can the arts because they are not productive". Yet, more research is showing just the opposite. Art & music heal, improves productivity and general well being. Those are not esoteric outcomes. They are real.

When it comes to women, part of the benefit AND the problem is that women often do truly think differently from men. You can parody that, stereotype it or ensure that all elements are utilized more effectively in society.

[thegreekdog]

The TIME article uses the following phrase: "Ensuring an end to discrimination..." and yet offered no options. How does one ensure an end to discrimination?

That is the basic problem. But in this case, there are a good many who really don't want it to end.

Yeah... so what's the answer? Let's say there is conscious instutitionalized sexism with respect to how much a woman is paid and there is subconscious sexism as well (example 1: "She's going to want to take maternity leave, so let's pay her less;" example 2: "She's great and we should hire her as VP of marketing (who makes less than VP of operations.").

I can think of some options, but all of them involve government intervention: namely, that a certain number of executives must be women or all women must make the same salary as men regardless of length of service, hours worked, etc. I can think of zero non-government options, other than self-regulation which has apparently not worked.

[Woodruff]

From my perspective, I don't think the job market is truly equitable. Not in the sense that every child born has equal opportunity to succeed.

Until we live in a Star Trek utopia where money is no longer necessary for anything, it never will be.

[thegreekdog]

The TIME article uses the following phrase: "Ensuring an end to discrimination..." and yet offered no options. How does one ensure an end to discrimination?

That is the basic problem. But in this case, there are a good many who really don't want it to end.

From my perspective, I don't think the job market is truly equitable. Not in the sense that every child born has equal opportunity to succeed. On the other hand, creating such an environment would likely be very repressive. I do believe we can get a "happy median", have to a large extent gotten there, even though we are moving away from that ideal. The key is educational access. Our country prospered more because of our universal education system than from any other factor.

But part of education is about understanding and allowing differences. Its very tempting to say, for example, "let's can the arts because they are not productive". Yet, more research is showing just the opposite. Art & music heal, improves productivity and general well being. Those are not esoteric outcomes. They are real.

When it comes to women, part of the benefit AND the problem is that women often do truly think differently from men. You can parody that, stereotype it or ensure that all elements are utilized more effectively in society.

Interesting. I sort of agree with that (WHAT?!?!?!). I don't agree that women do not want to join the same professional sectors as men. My law school class, for example, had significantly more women than men (like 55% to 45%) and women were well represented in the top 20% of the graduating class. So, a lot of women from my law school got excellent jobs. My female friends who fit that description (top 20% of graduating class) either no longer work for big (read: high paying) firms or work a part time schedule and thus make less money.

That being said, I do agree (and the studies in the beginning of this thread show it) that women tend to join less well-paying fields than men. Rather than ask why women do that (which seems to be what those studies ask), maybe we should ask why those fields are less well paying. Yes, I'm looking at you BBS.