(Close Window)
Topic: Yearbook comment for the ages
Message: Posted by: Magnus Eisengrim (May 29, 2015 09:40AM)
Smart kid.

[img]http://cdn29.elitedaily.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/05/Yearbook-800x400.jpg[/img]
Message: Posted by: LobowolfXXX (May 29, 2015 11:13AM)
Can she do it on 95.2%?

The raw wage gap data shows that a woman would earn roughly 73.7% to 77% of what a man would earn over their lifetime. However, when controllable variables are accounted for, such as job position, total hours worked, number of children, and the frequency at which unpaid leave is taken, in addition to other factors, the U.S. Department of Labor found in 2008 that the gap can be brought down from 23% to between 4.8% and 7.1%.[5]
Message: Posted by: Magnus Eisengrim (May 29, 2015 12:10PM)
[quote]On May 29, 2015, LobowolfXXX wrote:
Can she do it on 95.2%?

The raw wage gap data shows that a woman would earn roughly 73.7% to 77% of what a man would earn over their lifetime. However, when controllable variables are accounted for, such as job position, total hours worked, number of children, and the frequency at which unpaid leave is taken, in addition to other factors, the U.S. Department of Labor found in 2008 that the gap can be brought down from 23% to between 4.8% and 7.1%.[5] [/quote]

Looking at the [url=http://www.consad.com/content/reports/Gender%20Wage%20Gap%20Final%20Report.pdf]source study[/quote]

[quote]Economic research has identified many factors that account for portions of the gender wage gap. Some of the factors are consequences of differences in decisions made by women and men in balancing their work, personal, and family lives. These factors include their human capital development, their work experience, the occupations and industries in which they work, and interruptions in their careers.

Quantitative estimates of the effects of some factors, such as occupation and industry, can most easily be derived using data for very large numbers of workers, so that the detailed groupings of employees or employers that existing research indicates best describe the effects of the factors are adequately represented. Conversely, quantitative estimates of other factors, such as work experience and career interruptions, can most readily be obtained using data that describe the behavior of individual workers over extended time periods. The longitudinal data bases that contain such information include too few workers, however, to support adequate analysis of factors like occupation and industry; whereas the cross-sectional data bases that include enough workers to enable analysis of factors like occupation and industry do not collect data on individual workers over long enough periods to support adequate analysis of factors like work experience and job tenure.

As a result, it has not been possible to develop reliable estimates of the total percentage of the raw gender wage gap for which all of the factors that have been separately found to contribute to the gap collectively account. In this study, an attempt has been made to use data from a large cross-sectional database, the Outgoing Rotation Group files of the 2007 CPS, to construct variables that satisfactorily characterize factors whose effects have previously been estimated only using longitudinal data, so that reliable estimates of those effects can be derived in an analysis of the cross-sectional data. Specifically, variables have been developed to represent career interruption among workers with specific gender, age, and number of children. Statistical analysis that includes those variables has produced results that collectively account for between 65.1 and 76.4 percent of a raw gender wage gap of 20.4 percent, and thereby leave an adjusted gender wage gap that is between 4.8 and 7.1 percent.[/quote]
Message: Posted by: LobowolfXXX (May 29, 2015 01:03PM)
Exactly.
Message: Posted by: Magnus Eisengrim (May 29, 2015 01:28PM)
I think that there are many subtleties buried in that quotation.

1. If only women would stop having babies, they'd only make a little less than men.
2. Female mechanics make nearly 95% of what male mechanics make. Why don't more women enter the trade?

Exactly
Message: Posted by: balducci (May 29, 2015 01:34PM)
FWIW, studies show that gay females earn more than straight ones.

"In Britain, lesbians are paid an average of eight per cent more than straight women, with the trend even more extreme in other western countries. In the US, the difference is 20 per cent. Conversely gay men face a pay penalty, earning five per cent less than heterosexual men in the UK - rising to nine per cent in Germany and 12 per cent in Canada."
Message: Posted by: LobowolfXXX (May 29, 2015 01:39PM)
[quote]On May 29, 2015, Magnus Eisengrim wrote:
I think that there are many subtleties buried in that quotation.

1. If only women would stop having babies, they'd only make a little less than men.
2. Female mechanics make nearly 95% of what male mechanics make. Why don't more women enter the trade?

Exactly [/quote]

3. The 75% figure in the yearbook is specious.
Message: Posted by: Magnus Eisengrim (May 29, 2015 02:02PM)
[quote]On May 29, 2015, LobowolfXXX wrote:
[quote]On May 29, 2015, Magnus Eisengrim wrote:
I think that there are many subtleties buried in that quotation.

1. If only women would stop having babies, they'd only make a little less than men.
2. Female mechanics make nearly 95% of what male mechanics make. Why don't more women enter the trade?

Exactly [/quote]

3. The 75% figure in the yearbook is specious. [/quote]

If only the yearbook would have allowed her to space to say "79.6 cents to the dollar, based on a 2008 study commissioned by the US department of labor". It would have been much funnier, and would have driven home the point much more effectively.

She missed her chance.
Message: Posted by: LobowolfXXX (May 29, 2015 02:11PM)
Oh, I think she drove her point home quite well. Unfortunately at the expense of the reality, but what's accuracy when you're making a political statement?
Message: Posted by: LobowolfXXX (May 29, 2015 02:26PM)
[quote]On May 29, 2015, Magnus Eisengrim wrote:
I think that there are many subtleties buried in that quotation.

1. If only women would stop having babies, they'd only make a little less than men.
2. Female mechanics make nearly 95% of what male mechanics make. Why don't more women enter the trade?

Exactly [/quote]


Equality is about the ability to make the same choices as everyone else. Those choices have consequences. An example from my Feminist a Legal Theory class:

A woman and a man become attorneys at the same firm at the same time. After a few years, the woman has a baby and decides to take a year off. Upon her return, after a few more years, the man, who has worked about 2,500 more hours than she has, makes partner a year before she does and makes more money that year and for the rest of their careers.

The professor attributes this to sexism and believes that in a sexism-less society, the woman wouldn't fall behind the man on the partnership track. She should make what he makes and get credit for the year that she didn't being in money to the firm or gain experience. In reality, she's exactly in the position that a man [i]who chose to take a year off to spend time with his family [/i] would be in.

Moreover, giving her that year would completely screw over any [i]woman [/i] who opted not to take the year off.

What's the difference between the starting salary for men and women among professors at the local universities where you live? In my work experience as a teacher, first year starting salaries were fixed. As a lawyer, first year starting salaries were fixed. When my former roommate was a police officer, salaries were fixed. Which employers are you aware of that pay less to women with the same experience and qualifications? If "rich" is your goal, feminism isn't the answers - choosing a high-paying occupation and making personal life sacrifices is. Not a lot of rich male teachers. Not a lot of rich males taking years off to spend more time with the children (at least not until AFTER they're rich).
Message: Posted by: mastermindreader (May 29, 2015 02:49PM)
Not a lot of rich males giving birth either.
Message: Posted by: rockwall (May 29, 2015 03:33PM)
[quote]On May 29, 2015, balducci wrote:
FWIW, studies show that gay females earn more than straight ones.

"In Britain, lesbians are paid an average of eight per cent more than straight women, with the trend even more extreme in other western countries. In the US, the difference is 20 per cent. Conversely gay men face a pay penalty, earning five per cent less than heterosexual men in the UK - rising to nine per cent in Germany and 12 per cent in Canada." [/quote]

I somehow doubt that the lady in the OP finds it unfair that she'll be making more than her heterosexual female counterparts.
Message: Posted by: Starrpower (May 30, 2015 10:13AM)
[quote]On May 29, 2015, Magnus Eisengrim wrote:
I think that there are many subtleties buried in that quotation.

1. If only women would stop having babies, they'd only make a little less than men.[/quote]

Interesting conclusion. So do you feel that women who take care of their children or take maternity leaves should be paid for that time by someone who had not part in making that child?
Message: Posted by: Magnus Eisengrim (May 30, 2015 10:21AM)
[quote]On May 30, 2015, Starrpower wrote:
[quote]On May 29, 2015, Magnus Eisengrim wrote:
I think that there are many subtleties buried in that quotation.

1. If only women would stop having babies, they'd only make a little less than men.[/quote]

Interesting conclusion. So do you feel that women who take care of their children or take maternity leaves should be paid for that time by someone who had not part in making that child? [/quote]

Who knows what the best solution is. The fact remains that maternity becomes a short term--income loss/reduction--as well as a long-term--reduced income, reduced advancement, reduced salary, reduced pension--financial burden on women.

I don't know what the idea solution is. But I do know that women earn less than men, partially because of maternity. And I do think they deserve better than that.
Message: Posted by: Starrpower (May 30, 2015 10:27AM)
We all have setbacks. Some we can control, others we can't. I am not 7' tall and as a result I make less than an NBA star. Poor me ... someone should do something about this lack of equality that is not my fault!

Is monetary gain the most important component to determine equability?
Message: Posted by: LobowolfXXX (May 30, 2015 10:28AM)
Many (I'm pretty sure it's "most," but I'll avoid making that claim) women who are parents will tell you that having children was the most rewarding thing they've ever done. So there is some mitigation there.
Message: Posted by: Starrpower (May 30, 2015 10:32AM)
You beat me to it! I was just amending my post when yours came through. Here is what I was going to add:

Perhaps a lifetime of joy and satisfaction that is gained by being able to deliver a new life into the world -- something I as a man can't do -- is worth fewer dollars.

(For the record, all my female colleagues make exactly the same salary as me, and my company's woman president make far more. When I was teaching, all teachers -- male and female -- made the same.)
Message: Posted by: Magnus Eisengrim (May 30, 2015 10:47AM)
Being female is a "setback"? I guess that's the point, eh?


BTW Starrpower, your point about employees making the same is the central issue here.

You use the example of teachers, and it's a very good and clear one. In most jurisdictions, teacher salary depends on two variables: amount of relevant education and number of years of service.

Suppose M (a male) and F (a female) have equivalent education and no experience. They are both hired to the same school jurisdiction, and are on the same salary grid. Their salaries are identical until age 30, when F becomes pregnant. She takes a leave from her job for the first year of her child's life. She now lags behind M on the experience grid and will make less money than him on her return to the classroom. (In most teacher salary grids there is a cap, so eventually they will both be at the top of the grid with nowhere to go.)

Her maternity leave does give her some income, but it's less than a full salary.

When she returns, she will not have her established position back in most cases, and will have to re-enter in a new position and will essentially be a rookie wherever she teaches.

If she has more than one child, she'll go through the process and lag one more time.

If she spends more than her allotted maternity leave with the children, she will have to give up her income and re-enter the workforce well behind M in terms of salary and experience. She will not have company benefits, including health care. (This also applies to men who take time to raise children. For social reasons, this is far less common, but is slowly changing.)

Of course, each year off makes promotion more difficult, and it is very expensive in terms of pension. F will have to work much older than M and might not every catch up in terms of pension benefits.

I agree that (in North America, at least) teaching is one of the most gender-fair employments available. And yet, there are still structures that provide barriers to women.
Message: Posted by: LobowolfXXX (May 30, 2015 10:57AM)
To opt to have a child is a decision with inherent financial consequences. It seems to me that the person making that choice should be the one to bear those consequences.
Message: Posted by: Magnus Eisengrim (May 30, 2015 11:00AM)
So cute that men can refer to female reproduction as a "decision with inherent financial consequences". No. We have an economic system that enforces economic consequences on women. There is nothing "inherent" about it.
Message: Posted by: LobowolfXXX (May 30, 2015 11:07AM)
[quote]On May 30, 2015, Magnus Eisengrim wrote:
Being female is a "setback"? I guess that's the point, eh?


BTW Starrpower, your point about employees making the same is the central issue here.

You use the example of teachers, and it's a very good and clear one. In most jurisdictions, teacher salary depends on two variables: amount of relevant education and number of years of service.

Suppose M (a male) and F (a female) have equivalent education and no experience. They are both hired to the same school jurisdiction, and are on the same salary grid. Their salaries are identical until age 30, when F becomes pregnant. She takes a leave from her job for the first year of her child's life. She now lags behind M on the experience grid and will make less money than him on her return to the classroom. (In most teacher salary grids there is a cap, so eventually they will both be at the top of the grid with nowhere to go.)

Her maternity leave does give her some income, but it's less than a full salary.

When she returns, she will not have her established position back in most cases, and will have to re-enter in a new position and will essentially be a rookie wherever she teaches.

If she has more than one child, she'll go through the process and lag one more time.

If she spends more than her allotted maternity leave with the children, she will have to give up her income and re-enter the workforce well behind M in terms of salary and experience. She will not have company benefits, including health care. (This also applies to men who take time to raise children. For social reasons, this is far less common, but is slowly changing.)

Of course, each year off makes promotion more difficult, and it is very expensive in terms of pension. F will have to work much older than M and might not every catch up in terms of pension benefits.

I agree that (in North America, at least) teaching is one of the most gender-fair employments available. And yet, there are still structures that provide barriers to women. [/quote]

Being female isn't the setback; opting to disappear from the workforce is. And as we hear all the time in the abortion debate, it IS a choice. Making your two hypothetical teachers both female illustrates the fallacy. Let's say one of them doesn't want children; now you would have that teacher make no more money than the one with one year's less experience and who has spent a couple of thousand fewer hours teaching.

In fact, let's take a childless woman and a man who takes paternity leave. Of course the woman should make more (other things being equal).
Message: Posted by: LobowolfXXX (May 30, 2015 11:10AM)
[quote]On May 30, 2015, Magnus Eisengrim wrote:
So cute that men can refer to female reproduction as a "decision with inherent financial consequences". No. We have an economic system that enforces economic consequences on women. There is nothing "inherent" about it. [/quote]

I suppose in a society where food, clothing, education, health care, and everything else were free (and by "free," I mean actually free, not "paid for by somebody else," though that's a "cute" definition, too), the consequences wouldn't be inherent.
Message: Posted by: LobowolfXXX (May 30, 2015 11:12AM)
[quote]On May 30, 2015, Magnus Eisengrim wrote:
So cute that men can refer to female reproduction as a "decision with inherent financial consequences". No. We have an economic system that enforces economic consequences on women. There is nothing "inherent" about it. [/quote]


We have an economic system that imposes economic consequences on PARENTS, male and female (as does every other economic system in the western world with which I'm familiar), and no similar economic consequences on childless people of EITHER sex. As a father, you spent money housing, feeding, clothing, and possibly educating your children, true or false? No childless woman had similar expenses.

I suspect if we brought my 42-year old childless-by-choice ex-girlfriend into the discussion and you made a ballpark estimate of how much you spent raising your children, she'd think it was cute (by which I mean "hilarious") that you think such expenses are gender-specific.
Message: Posted by: lunatik (May 30, 2015 11:27AM)
Women can stop having abortions if they'd just keep their legs closed. Why don't they just play with themselves?
Message: Posted by: LobowolfXXX (May 30, 2015 11:28AM)
As an aside, I note (before S2000 gets to this thread) that the girl in the yearbook is suggesting that women earn 3/400 of the amount that men earn.
Message: Posted by: Magnus Eisengrim (May 30, 2015 11:34AM)
[quote]On May 30, 2015, LobowolfXXX wrote:
As an aside, I note (before S2000 gets to this thread) that the girl in the yearbook is suggesting that women earn 3/400 of the amount that men earn. [/quote]

Or, more likely, the student who typeset the yearbook.
Message: Posted by: Magnus Eisengrim (May 30, 2015 11:35AM)
[quote]On May 30, 2015, lunatik wrote:
Women can stop having abortions if they'd just keep their legs closed. Why don't they just play with themselves? [/quote]

[img]http://diligences.com/sites/default/files/DontFeedtheTrolls.png[/img]
Message: Posted by: LobowolfXXX (May 30, 2015 11:36AM)
[quote]On May 30, 2015, Magnus Eisengrim wrote:
[quote]On May 30, 2015, LobowolfXXX wrote:
As an aside, I note (before S2000 gets to this thread) that the girl in the yearbook is suggesting that women earn 3/400 of the amount that men earn. [/quote]

Or, more likely, the student who typeset the yearbook. [/quote]


Probably true...I'm inclined to suspect that you're right in characterizing the girl in the picture as a smart kid.
Message: Posted by: LobowolfXXX (May 30, 2015 12:04PM)
If she's planning on being an entrepreneur, maybe the Association of Libertarian Feminists could help her by lobbying to limit the amount she'll be forced to pay people not to work.
Message: Posted by: lunatik (May 30, 2015 12:43PM)
[quote]On May 30, 2015, Magnus Eisengrim wrote:
[quote]On May 30, 2015, lunatik wrote:
Women can stop having abortions if they'd just keep their legs closed. Why don't they just play with themselves? [/quote]

[img]http://diligences.com/sites/default/files/DontFeedtheTrolls.png[/img] [/quote]


as I thought, no intelligent response....
Message: Posted by: S2000magician (May 30, 2015 01:01PM)
[quote]On May 30, 2015, LobowolfXXX wrote:
As an aside, I note (before S2000 gets to this thread) that the girl in the yearbook is suggesting that women earn 3/400 of the amount that men earn.[/quote]
I just got into Toronto. What do I know?
Message: Posted by: S2000magician (May 30, 2015 01:03PM)
[quote]On May 30, 2015, lunatik wrote:
[quote]On May 30, 2015, Magnus Eisengrim wrote:
[quote]On May 30, 2015, lunatik wrote:
Women can stop having abortions if they'd just keep their legs closed. Why don't they just play with themselves?[/quote]
[img]http://diligences.com/sites/default/files/DontFeedtheTrolls.png[/img][/quote]
as I thought, no intelligent response....[/quote]
Surely you're not honestly suggesting that your post merits an intelligent response.
Message: Posted by: lunatik (May 30, 2015 01:20PM)
[quote]On May 30, 2015, S2000magician wrote:
[quote]On May 30, 2015, lunatik wrote:
[quote]On May 30, 2015, Magnus Eisengrim wrote:
[quote]On May 30, 2015, lunatik wrote:
Women can stop having abortions if they'd just keep their legs closed. Why don't they just play with themselves?[/quote]
[img]http://diligences.com/sites/default/files/DontFeedtheTrolls.png[/img][/quote]
as I thought, no intelligent response....[/quote]
Surely you're not honestly suggesting that your post merits an intelligent response. [/quote]

Surely In light of women who keep having abortions, killing their children, why not? If someone needs to have an orgasm and can't or won't take on the responsibility of raising a child, then they shouldn't be having sex. They can buy a carrot and have at it, no child will be conceived for them to kill.
Message: Posted by: LobowolfXXX (May 30, 2015 02:32PM)
I can only surmise that Magnus felt that an intelligent response would have been disproportionate. I think that your post is far afield from the topic of gender/wage equality, and also about as insightful as rhetorically wondering why people complain about car theft, when all they have to do to avoid is is not own a car. So I can't say that I'd have spent much formulating a response, either.
Message: Posted by: Starrpower (May 30, 2015 02:49PM)
Lobo, you are comparing a criminal act (having your car stolen) to an act of personal choice (having sex). Perhaps he was a bit crude in his example, but his conclusions are reasonable. However, I agree that this is a tad off topic.
Message: Posted by: LobowolfXXX (May 30, 2015 04:19PM)
His conclusions are reasonable if you mean accurate, but also trivial. If the argument is that celibate people never have cause to get abortions, I don't think we're going to see much of a debate arising.