2 of 9
2
Equal pay
Posted: 10 April 2014 12:59 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 16 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  9301
Joined  2006-08-29
TimB - 10 April 2014 11:03 AM

AFAIK, that reverse gender gap in pay, only applies to “unmarried, childless women under 30 who live in cities”. And it makes sense, in that young women are generally more college educated than young men, these days.

So up until the age of twenty-nine women make more money than men because they are better educated. Then, when they turn thirty, their employers start to pay them less because…because what?

Profile
 
 
Posted: 10 April 2014 01:04 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 17 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  3330
Joined  2011-11-04
George - 10 April 2014 10:46 AM

Not sure why the link above doesn’t work, but if you copy the whole thing (from “http” to “pdf”) and do a google search, you’ll find it.

So in a nutshell, this study acknowledges the gender gap in pay, but ultimately concludes that it is impossible to determine broadly whether that gap is due to justifiable differences or to overt discrimination.  So then, if that’s true, should the possibility of overt discrimination just be ignored?

Sorry, women, George knows that it might well be that you get paid less for the same work because you have different lifestyle choices, (or you may just be getting screwed over, but let’s not rock the boat, because men and women are different).  Even though you sometimes do the same work, it is only natural that you women get paid less.  You have ovaries in a world where testicles dominate.  Might makes right.  What is, ought. Justice is an unjustifiable notion.

 Signature 

As a fabrication of our own consciousness, our assignations of meaning are no less “real”, but since humans and the fabrications of our consciousness are routinely fraught with error, it makes sense, to me, to, sometimes, question such fabrications.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 10 April 2014 01:05 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 18 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  1777
Joined  2007-10-22

Time to get the unions back?

 Signature 

Gary the Human

All the Gods and all religions are created by humans, to meet human needs and accomplish human ends.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 10 April 2014 01:47 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 19 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  3330
Joined  2011-11-04
George - 10 April 2014 12:59 PM
TimB - 10 April 2014 11:03 AM

AFAIK, that reverse gender gap in pay, only applies to “unmarried, childless women under 30 who live in cities”. And it makes sense, in that young women are generally more college educated than young men, these days.

So up until the age of twenty-nine women make more money than men because they are better educated. Then, when they turn thirty, their employers start to pay them less because…because what?

Don’t be dense.  We don’t know what will happen to this small subgroup of women who (only in recent history) are getting paid more than their male counterparts.  But we do know based on the overall history, that if they have the same qualifications and do the same work and have the same marital status as men, and the same number of children, women are likely to be paid less.

Why? you ask.  Employers have been able to get away with paying them less.  Employers will generally do what makes the most profit.

 Signature 

As a fabrication of our own consciousness, our assignations of meaning are no less “real”, but since humans and the fabrications of our consciousness are routinely fraught with error, it makes sense, to me, to, sometimes, question such fabrications.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 10 April 2014 02:00 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 20 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  2232
Joined  2007-04-26
George - 10 April 2014 10:46 AM

Not sure why the link above doesn’t work, but if you copy the whole thing (from “http” to “pdf”) and do a google search, you’ll find it.

Very nice. Rather than ask me to read a 95 page report the obligation is up to you to cite the pertinent passages here that support your comments. I’ll wait for you to do the homework. You made the comments. You bear the burden of supporting them. Cite the pages and data in the document that back up what you are claiming

 Signature 

For every complex problem there is a solution that is simple, obvious,.... and just plain wrong

Profile
 
 
Posted: 10 April 2014 02:00 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 21 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  2602
Joined  2012-10-27
George - 10 April 2014 12:59 PM
TimB - 10 April 2014 11:03 AM

AFAIK, that reverse gender gap in pay, only applies to “unmarried, childless women under 30 who live in cities”. And it makes sense, in that young women are generally more college educated than young men, these days.

So up until the age of twenty-nine women make more money than men because they are better educated. Then, when they turn thirty, their employers start to pay them less because…because what?

It’s not that they “begin to pay them less’” but women are less likely to be promoted and recieve the same kinds of raises as men do. Many women were hired at a lower rate than men and never were able to close the gap. From right out of college to retirement there is a pattern of paying men more for the same work. Men are hired for more money and they are paid higher increases after that. It’s a persistent pattern that has resisted many employment and civil rights laws.

Lois

Profile
 
 
Posted: 10 April 2014 02:05 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 22 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  2232
Joined  2007-04-26

George while we are posting supporting evidence here is a recent study comparing gender differences in physician salaries. In this case the numbers are corrected for work hours, productivity, experience and all relevant factors that might influence income other than gender. Even doing so women made significantly less than men.

Gender Differences in the Salaries of Physician Researchers ( http://jama.jamanetwork.com/article.aspx?articleid=1182859)

 Signature 

For every complex problem there is a solution that is simple, obvious,.... and just plain wrong

Profile
 
 
Posted: 10 April 2014 02:05 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 23 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  3330
Joined  2011-11-04
garythehuman - 10 April 2014 01:05 PM

Time to get the unions back?

Hmmm… a Women’s Union.  It could be rather formidable.

 Signature 

As a fabrication of our own consciousness, our assignations of meaning are no less “real”, but since humans and the fabrications of our consciousness are routinely fraught with error, it makes sense, to me, to, sometimes, question such fabrications.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 10 April 2014 02:43 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 24 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  9301
Joined  2006-08-29
macgyver - 10 April 2014 02:05 PM

George while we are posting supporting evidence here is a recent study comparing gender differences in physician salaries. In this case the numbers are corrected for work hours, productivity, experience and all relevant factors that might influence income other than gender. Even doing so women made significantly less than men.

Gender Differences in the Salaries of Physician Researchers ( http://jama.jamanetwork.com/article.aspx?articleid=1182859)

I don’t know, maybe men are simply better doctors than women.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 10 April 2014 03:09 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 25 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  9301
Joined  2006-08-29

Actually, macgyver, did you get to read the whole thing? All they can prove is that male doctors make more than women. The numbers are nowhere close to being corrected for all the factors you have listed. Read the whole thing, it’s a joke.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 10 April 2014 03:32 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 26 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  9301
Joined  2006-08-29

The biggest problem with the study is the number of participants represented by each sex. There were twice as many women as men. Let’s assume they all overestimated how many hours they work a week. If they all added 10 hours on top of how many hours they actually worked, the roughly 500 female participants as opposed to roughly 250 male participants, will add 130,000 hours per year to their column. That is, 130,000 hours that are a lie. Maybe not a deliberate lie, but a lie nevertheless.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 10 April 2014 03:44 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 27 ]
Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  173
Joined  2011-11-06

I really do not understand how this is even still legal. It’s clear discrimination. The majority of my supervisors have been women and they can run circles around me.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 10 April 2014 05:06 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 28 ]
Moderator
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  5551
Joined  2010-06-16

The aerospace company I worked for when I was very young had the policy of personnel hiring anyone who had a list of publications or degrees (no matter how weak the school) so they could list them on bids for military contracts.  My boss decided to put four of these together in one group and put me over it, even though they were all much older and had many more years of work experience.  I have to say the woman was dumb as a rock, but that was fine because all three of the guys were equally as dumb as she was.  Fortunately, they had a cutback and the woman was laid off just as were all three of the guys.  The only good thing about it was that I got to ask each of them their monthly salary and found that they were all very close but well above mine.  When I pointed it out to my boss, he was annoyed because that was supposed to be confidential, however, I got a very good raise.  LOL

Occam

 Signature 

Succinctness, clarity’s core.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 10 April 2014 06:23 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 29 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  2232
Joined  2007-04-26
George - 10 April 2014 03:09 PM

Actually, macgyver, did you get to read the whole thing? All they can prove is that male doctors make more than women. The numbers are nowhere close to being corrected for all the factors you have listed. Read the whole thing, it’s a joke.

I’m guessing you missed the conclusion and did’t bother to read the methods where they go over this.

:Conclusion Gender differences in salary exist in this select, homogeneous cohort of mid-career academic physicians, even after adjustment for differences in specialty, institutional characteristics, academic productivity, academic rank, work hours, and other factors.”

 Signature 

For every complex problem there is a solution that is simple, obvious,.... and just plain wrong

Profile
 
 
Posted: 10 April 2014 06:26 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 30 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  2232
Joined  2007-04-26
George - 10 April 2014 03:32 PM

The biggest problem with the study is the number of participants represented by each sex. There were twice as many women as men. Let’s assume they all overestimated how many hours they work a week. If they all added 10 hours on top of how many hours they actually worked, the roughly 500 female participants as opposed to roughly 250 male participants, will add 130,000 hours per year to their column. That is, 130,000 hours that are a lie. Maybe not a deliberate lie, but a lie nevertheless.

This just doesn’t even make any sense George

 Signature 

For every complex problem there is a solution that is simple, obvious,.... and just plain wrong

Profile
 
 
   
2 of 9
2
 
‹‹ US gun deaths      The Wealth Divide. ››