Do women make less than men?

[natty dread]

femnazis

[huamulan]

PLAYER, I am STILL waiting for your proof that CEOs have greater capacity to successfully negotiate their salary/benefits upwards than people who work in other jobs. As it stands, my anecdote beats your totally unfounded assumption.

Since then you have also said:

On the other hand, creating such an environment would likely be very repressive.

Creating that environment does not have to be oppressive in any way. I think I mentioned earlier that Sweden has achieved almost total gender-equality in employment (even for mothers). The two main factors that helped create this situation were:

- a welfare regime that assumes total equality. Individuals are taxed and assisted in light of their status as a Swedish citizen, not in light of their status as a mother/father, woman/man, spouse/singleton etc.
- a gender-neutral system of paid parental leave. A lot of countries legislate a generous amount of paid maternity leave but little paid paternity or parental leave. Sweden gives the mother and father the exact same entitlements.

The state doesn't have to lean on anyone or force employers down a certain path. All it has to do is treat women the same way as it treats men - this then encourages a gender-neutral mindset amongst the general population.

The key is educational access.

Which women have in abundance in the West. In most Western countries girls outdo boys at all higher levels of education and plain outnumber them at university-level.

[natty dread]

uncomfortable truths are often ignored

And still, you are yet to provide any evidence whatsoever that women have a harder time negotiating than men.

aying "women don't negotiate" is one of the arguments being thrown out a lot today.

It's also been shown false

http://www.washingtonpost.com/national/ ... ingtonpost

Our recent Catalyst report, The Myth of the Ideal Worker , reveals that women do ask for raises and promotions. They just don’t get as much in return.

The research focused on career paths of high-potential men and women, drawing on thousands of MBA graduates from top schools around the world. Catalyst found that, among those who had moved on from their first post-MBA job, there was no significant difference in the proportion of women and men who asked for increased compensation or a higher position.

Yet the rewards were different.

Women who initiated such conversations and changed jobs post MBA experienced slower compensation growth than the women who stayed put. For men, on the other hand, it paid off to change jobs and negotiate for higher salaries—they earned more than men who stayed did. And we saw that as both men’s and women’s careers progress, the gender gap in level and pay gets even wider.

[Lootifer]

femnazis

Oh ill go to war against discrimination in a heartbeat, but I aint gunna support some demogogue extremists who are operating with bias information.

[huamulan]

natty: Maybe men primarily switch jobs for a higher salary while women primarily switch jobs for other reasons.

Who's to say otherwise?

[BigBallinStalin]

Of course men make more than women. There is nothing wrong with this situation.

Take off that phatscotty hat bro, it doesnt suit ya.

If you dig into the context beyond what he is saying he can still say it while being consistent with what I said above:

Currently femnazis will tell you that men make 25% (or whatever) more than woman; but only a small fraction of this difference is because of discrimination.

Most of it will be made up by woman doing different (and more often than not lower paying) jobs than men. No discrimination; you just dont pay a nurse the same you pay a doctor.

Now are there some inherent failure in society where we push woman into nursing school, but men into medical school? Maybe; but that is certainly making good progress as society breaks down old fashioned attitudes.

That's the only route which I find acceptable. If some people value promoting such ideas, then they should be free to do so.

If some people want women to earn the same as men, then they should identify what causes the discrepancy of the productivity between the two genders on average.

In other words, you can discourage women from having children, or you can encourage men to be stay-at-home dads.
Or, if you want to boost the national average, then encourage women to enter occupations which pay more than the one's which women tend to abound.

It's the ideas that matter and, if its supporters would put their money where their mouth is, then they'll follow-up with their ideals.

(NOTE: "you" as in the general you, not you in particular, Lootifer).

[natty dread]

demogogue

[BigBallinStalin]

And jesus Sym, sort ur shit out. Now I think I know how BBS feels when PS goes to bat for libertarian ideals.

It's awesome, isn't it? Feels fuckin' fantastic to have your ideology recklessly whipped to death.

Because history shows that we can be rather discriminatory when left to our own devices.

Big question for the big guy:

in general, which institution creates longer lasting and more beneficial change regarding discrimination:

a) political institutions
b) economic institutions
c) social institutions

[thegreekdog]

Okay, seriously? I didn't even address you original reply in my post. Why are you hanging on to it? I thought we'd moved on. The government has employees... great, wonderful, grand. Let's move on (again)... there is literally no point in debating something that is universally acknowledged as true.

As to private employers, government should clearly have a say as a point of principle. The level of governmental interference is clearly up for debate, but ruling out any form of governmental interference is at best wrong, and at worst dangerous.

Why? What do you mean by a point of principle?

Also, for purposes of this discussion, I'm assuming all federal, state, and local laws government workplace discrimination with respect to gender are valid. Therefore, we're only talking about new laws or regulations.

As a point of principle, that people should earn the same level of pay if they do the same job. And that the government is a major employer. Indeed, to take it further, few so called "private" companies are separate from the government in any meaningful sense.

I sense that you want me to explain the flaws in your received arguments before you attempt to explain the logic behind what you've been told is true.

I guess we're not having this discussion since you just want to troll me (for whatever reason).

[Army of GOD]

in general, which institution creates longer lasting and more beneficial change regarding discrimination:

a) political institutions
b) economic institutions
c) social institutions

I'd like to phone a friend, plox

[thegreekdog]

demogogue

Natty - Stop doing that please. Thanks. Greek Moderator Dog.

[rdsrds2120]

And jesus Sym, sort ur shit out. Now I think I know how BBS feels when PS goes to bat for libertarian ideals.

It's awesome, isn't it? Feels fuckin' fantastic to have your ideology recklessly whipped to death.

Because history shows that we can be rather discriminatory when left to our own devices.

Big question for the big guy:

in general, which institution creates longer lasting and more beneficial change regarding discrimination:

a) political institutions
b) economic institutions
c) social institutions

I'll 50/50, then choose half of social institutions.

-rd

[Lootifer]

Big question for the big guy:

in general, which institution creates longer lasting and more beneficial change regarding discrimination:

a) political institutions
b) economic institutions
c) social institutions

BAM! HUGE QUESTION!

Honestly I have NFI; thats a kinda PhD sized question.

However ill have a crack anyways...

My answer: d) educational institutions (so social? I dunno, depends on your definition).

In todays society the way forward is firstly identifying where the discrimination is (which in itself is a hugely difficult area due to the sensitivity and political bias involved).

Thats gunna be solved by educational institutions (its a research topic when you break it down).

Once you've identified the problem you can do it which ever way you like. All methods have pros and cons.

Personally I just think we should line up and shoot all the fuckwads who still think woman are some how inferior to men in ANYTHING*

*(outside of obvious physiological differences, but that can be ignored if you are hiring based on merits anyway - ill happily hire a woman for a heavy lifting role, so long as she can outlift the other applicants - unfortunately physiology tends to make this quite a rare occurance)

[huamulan]

Changes beneficial to discrimination? Apartheid in South Africa weathered economic sanctions due to the power of social and political backing, so I guess society and politics were the institutions most capable of creating long-lasting discrimination.

You may be using the term 'beneficial' to refer to the removal of discrimination, but you have to ask whether the benefit is universal.

[PLAYER57832]

Of course men make more than women. There is nothing wrong with this situation.

Take off that phatscotty hat bro, it doesnt suit ya.

If you dig into the context beyond what he is saying he can still say it while being consistent with what I said above:

Currently femnazis will tell you that men make 25% (or whatever) more than woman; but only a small fraction of this difference is because of discrimination.

Most of it will be made up by woman doing different (and more often than not lower paying) jobs than men. No discrimination; you just dont pay a nurse the same you pay a doctor.

This is actually not true if you use the 75% figure. That figure is based on census/tax return data for the same positions. In many cases, the data is adjusted for things like taking time off, etc.

If you take "similar" work, then the disparity increases significantly. There are no exact figures because its nearly impossible to even say what work is truly like another job.

Now are there some inherent failure in society where we push woman into nursing school, but men into medical school? Maybe; but that is certainly making good progress as society breaks down old fashioned attitudes.

Yes. There absolutely are. To some extent, it may even be biology. BUT, we have to be very careful. For example, men are generally stronger than women, so the argument has been that women and not men should be firefighters, etc. However, many women fail at those jobs and many women do those jobs quite successfully. In some cases, standards have changed. They changed, though, because the old standards were no longer completely necessary with new equipment and techniques. On the other hand, basically every nursing program is heavily female. Yet, many men actually prefer men to care for them. Decent male nurses are in heavy demand. I don't want to get bogged down in any specific examples. Each one is controversial, but my point is that its not so much about steering individuals as it is about not setting up artificial criteria based on false assumptions. A lot of the old ideas do just that.

[PLAYER57832]

PLAYER, I am STILL waiting for your proof that CEOs have greater capacity to successfully negotiate their salary/benefits upwards than people who work in other jobs. As it stands, my anecdote beats your totally unfounded assumption.

Just look at the variation in CEO pay. Most people work at jobs with pay rates and benefits set well before they even apply. This is not an assumption. It is reality.

Since then you have also said:

On the other hand, creating such an environment would likely be very repressive.

Creating that environment does not have to be oppressive in any way. I think I mentioned earlier that Sweden has achieved almost total gender-equality in employment (even for mothers). The two main factors that helped create this situation were:

- a welfare regime that assumes total equality. Individuals are taxed and assisted in light of their status as a Swedish citizen, not in light of their status as a mother/father, woman/man, spouse/singleton etc.
- a gender-neutral system of paid parental leave. A lot of countries legislate a generous amount of paid maternity leave but little paid paternity or parental leave. Sweden gives the mother and father the exact same entitlements.

The state doesn't have to lean on anyone or force employers down a certain path. All it has to do is treat women the same way as it treats men - this then encourages a gender-neutral mindset amongst the general population.

All of which are things that many would call oppressive. Sweden is not the paradise you seem to imply. I like Sweden, but part of what makes it work is its cultural homogeneity.

The key is educational access.

Which women have in abundance in the West. In most Western countries girls outdo boys at all higher levels of education and plain outnumber them at university-level.

LOL. Depends heavily on the field, but even with that education, women still make less than men. And, educational opportunity in the US is declining. Some of the decline is not yet fully evident, but you don't have to look deeply to know its there.

[PLAYER57832]

natty: Maybe men primarily switch jobs for a higher salary while women primarily switch jobs for other reasons.

Who's to say otherwise?

The data. Research.

[huamulan]

Just look at the variation in CEO pay

Allah wept. You have got to be kidding me. What, you think the CEO of Coca Cola and the CEO of a local Sri Lankan furniture-making firm will have the same salary just because they are both CEOs? Or at the other end of the scale: you think the CEO of Goldman Sachs pays his maid the same as a small town solicitor pays his maid? Hint: different companies pay their employees different amounts.

I'd love to know why you think it is 'oppressive' to give women and men equal entitlement to paid parental leave.

If women earn less than men despite having the same level of education then that would suggest that educational access is not the key.

[BigBallinStalin]

Changes beneficial to discrimination? Apartheid in South Africa weathered economic sanctions due to the power of social and political backing, so I guess society and politics were the institutions most capable of creating long-lasting discrimination.

You may be using the term 'beneficial' to refer to the removal of discrimination, but you have to ask whether the benefit is universal.

?

"in general, which institution creates longer lasting and more beneficial change regarding discrimination"

!=

"changes beneficial to discrimination"


The topic is discrimination ("regarding discrimination"). "Which institution creates... more beneficial change," as in, change that is good. I'm assuming that beneficial change is stepping away from discrimination, or the act of discouraging discrimination. I think nearly everyone here views discrimination as bad... like banning burqas in France. That would be a discriminatory law on religious and cultural grounds.


I agree that political institutions are the most effective at maintaining discrimination.

[huamulan]

You might argue that banning burkhas is 'beneficial' as it prevents suicide bombers from hiding bombs under those big, flowing capes.

http://www.france24.com/en/20101225-bur ... aid-center
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldne ... omber.html

[BigBallinStalin]

No worries. Terrorists already seek substitutes, like duffel bags, vans, large jackets, etc, so your argument isn't convincing.

That's really not the primary reason why burqas were banned. Apparently, in France there's enough political support for discriminatory practices against non-pasty-white French people, and such oppressive laws can be used for the state's favorite reasoning: "national security," which is convincing enough for the uninformed voter. Burqas were banned because it was politically profitable to do so.

There's also an "out of sight, out of mind" reasoning to this. For example, some bars in the US prohibit people who wear baggy pants from entering. This effectively prevents many young black men from entering. That's just how it is. So, all those women, who wear burqas, are essentially prisoners at home because of this law. Now, on the streets, France seems less orthodox Muslim. Isn't that lovely? "Beneficial" discrimination, indeed, monsieur.

[PLAYER57832]

Just look at the variation in CEO pay

Allah wept. You have got to be kidding me. What, you think the CEO of Coca Cola and the CEO of a local Sri Lankan furniture-making firm will have the same salary just because they are both CEOs? Or at the other end of the scale: you think the CEO of Goldman Sachs pays his maid the same as a small town solicitor pays his maid? Hint: different companies pay their employees different amounts.

No. Wrong on most counts. And per the maid.. if they live in the same town, they probably are paid pretty similar rates. But maids are usually independent contractors of a sort, not wage employees. As I already noted, contractors do negotiate.

I'd love to know why you think it is 'oppressive' to give women and men equal entitlement to paid parental leave.

Now what I said at all.
And pretty much illustrates your utter lack of honesty in this debate.
Sweden' s success is largely because of its homogeneous population. Its easy to create freedom of choice when there is not that much difference anyway. Its much different to create "equality" in a society as diverse as ours.

What I might call freedom many conservatives call "forcing the liberal will". Just read through Phattscotty, bradley badly or Nightstrike's comments. Personally, I think we actually have more freedom of choice in many ways here than in Sweden. We do not, however have as much economic freedom any longer.

If women earn less than men despite having the same level of education then that would suggest that educational access is not the key.

First, you are factually incorrect. Women with equal education/experience make less in the same jobs than men.

Beyond that, though, you have to look at the numbers all along the track and the actual results, not just a few surface indicators. For example, a lot of the best paid jobs (CEOs, stock traders for example) don't require PhDs. PhDs tend to be for academics, not the best paid positions. Also, while women have made decent inroads in certain fields of academia, this is not universal by any means.

And, part of the education that needs to happen is about educating men, not just women. A lot of men here make it pretty clear that they still, even today, don't consider women truly their equal in any sense.

You accuse me of talking off the top of my head, but you are making some pretty serious and incorrect assumptions.

[huamulan]

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.

[huamulan]

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

Creating that environment does not have to be oppressive in any way. I think I mentioned earlier that Sweden has achieved almost total gender-equality in employment (even for mothers). The two main factors that helped create this situation were:

- a welfare regime that assumes total equality. Individuals are taxed and assisted in light of their status as a Swedish citizen, not in light of their status as a mother/father, woman/man, spouse/singleton etc.
- a gender-neutral system of paid parental leave. A lot of countries legislate a generous amount of paid maternity leave but little paid paternity or parental leave. Sweden gives the mother and father the exact same entitlements.

The state doesn't have to lean on anyone or force employers down a certain path. All it has to do is treat women the same way as it treats men - this then encourages a gender-neutral mindset amongst the general population.

All of which are things that many would call oppressive. Sweden is not the paradise you seem to imply.

As for the CEO business: how am I 'wrong on most counts'? Someone with first-hand experience of a CEO's pay situation at two different companies versus you, someone whose experience of CEOs appears to end at shouting at the TV during your Occupy rallies.

You're too stupid to argue with. I'm done. Enjoy your home-making career.

[PLAYER57832]

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.