Export thread
Senate Republicans Block Equal Pay Measure for Women
#1
Charlie Don't Surf
Charlie Don't Surf
bla bla War on Women
bla bla fuck this country
bla bla exhibit A why the majority should never vote on minorities' rights
http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/2012/06/05/154383167/equal-pay-measure-fails-in-the-senate
bla bla fuck this country
bla bla exhibit A why the majority should never vote on minorities' rights
http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/2012/06/05/154383167/equal-pay-measure-fails-in-the-senate
With a vote of 52 to 47, today, Republicans in the Senate succesfully blocked a Democratic-backed bill that called for equal pay for women.
But, as the AP reports, passing the bill was not the only intent of Democrats. The bill was obviously intended to draw attention to schism that have developed between the two parties on women's issues.
The AP reports:
"The legislation, sponsored by Sen. Barbara Mikulski, D-Md., would require employers to prove that differences in pay are based on qualifications, education and other "bona fides" not related to gender. It also would prohibit employers from retaliating against employees who ask about, discuss or disclose wages in response to a complaint or investigation. And it would make employers who violate sex discrimination laws liable for compensatory or punitive damages. Under the bill, the federal government would be exempt from punitive damages.The campaign of Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney was also quick to respond to the vote.
"Proponents of the bill say it is the next step after the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act, which Obama signed into law in 2009. The law effectively overturned a Supreme Court decision that had strictly limited workers' ability to file lawsuits over pay inequity. Ledbetter said she didn't become aware of her own pay discrepancy until she neared the end of her 1979-1988 career at a Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co. plant in Gadsden, Ala."
"Of course Gov. Romney supports pay equity for women," Romney spokeswoman Amanda Henneberg told the AP. "In order to have pay equity, women need to have jobs, and they have been getting crushed in this anemic Obama economy."
The Washington Post reports that before the vote, Democratic senators took to the floor to explain why this bill was necessary.
Mikulski, the bill's sponsor, said the pay gap between the genders is still wide.
"In 1963 we made 59 cents for every dollar that men made. Now it's 77 cents," she said, according to the Post. "What does that mean? It means every five years we make an advancement of one penny. Oh no. No more. We're not just going to take it anymore."
Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, a Republican from Kentucky, said the legislation would cause more problems than it solves.
#2
GasBandit
bla bla paternity leave
bla bla not actually a minority anymore
bla bla trollface.
GasBandit
bla bla selective servicebla bla War on Women
bla bla fuck this country
bla bla exhibit A why the majority should never vote on minorities' rights
bla bla paternity leave
bla bla not actually a minority anymore
bla bla trollface.
#3
Charlie Don't Surf
Charlie Don't Surf
GasBandit would you describe yourself as a Men's Rights Advocate?
#4
Dei
Dei
Honestly, the Non-Equal Pay thing is generally just misrepresented statistics. When doing an Apples to Apples comparison, men and women make the same. When you are comparing the average salary of all women to the average salary of all men, that's where the disparity is, and that's mostly due to the fact that men tend to take on jobs that women don't.
#5
Fun Size
Fun Size
Actually, you're not allowed to go around comparing women's apples. Someone will eventually call HR.
#6
GasBandit
Also, duckman.
GasBandit
No, I describe myself as irritating. I was too lazy and wanted to poke you too much to say what Dei said, even though I'd read it numerous times elsewhere, including this board.GasBandit would you describe yourself as a Men's Rights Advocate?
Also, duckman.
#7
SpecialKO
http://www.forbes.com/sites/freekve...s-between-men-and-women-sexist-or-functional/
http://blogs.payscale.com/salary_report_kris_cowan/2012/05/do-men-really-earn-more-than-women.html
SpecialKO
Do you have some numbers on that one? Because a quick Google search would seem to indicate otherwise if we're comparing job-to-job instead of aggregates.When doing an Apples to Apples comparison, men and women make the same.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/freekve...s-between-men-and-women-sexist-or-functional/
http://blogs.payscale.com/salary_report_kris_cowan/2012/05/do-men-really-earn-more-than-women.html
#8
Soliloquy
Soliloquy
Weren't there statistics that came out showing that the white house actually pays its women employees less than its men?
#9
Charlie Don't Surf
Charlie Don't Surf
I think that's impossible, at least on the "paying less at the same job" level. From my time working at the federal government, all the salary structure stuff is intensely regulated and doesn't really have wiggle room. It could be a situation where they have more of the prerequisite stuff that bumps you up pay grades (like, I got a pay bump for having a 4-year degree). Which is a failure of society-at-large / the macro level of patriarchy rather than specifically the federal government/Obama administration.
Also for that matter, I'd be surprised if federal salary shit wasn't voted on by Congress anyways
Also for that matter, I'd be surprised if federal salary shit wasn't voted on by Congress anyways
#10
Dave
Dave
Anyone who doesn't think there's a war on women by the right either do not read/watch the news, are in denial, or are a member of Congress.
#11
Dei
Bear in mind that in most cases, women make different job choices than men. They tend to work less hours, they don't take on super hazardous jobs, and they tend to be the ones raising their family more than men are. They tend to be the ones who take the off from work to pick up sick kids from school, take kids to the doctor, and any other of numbers of factors. Maybe someday it will become more normal for men to do this stuff in the workplace. I'm not ragging on men, but really, in a workplace atmosphere, women are the ones who are expected to be the ones to deal with these things. (There's a whole other conversation about why women get mandatory maternity leave but men have to take unpaid time off if they don't have vacation time that I won't get into.)
(Also childless women tend to make more than men)
Dei
There is still a disparity, but it's more like 95 cents to the dollar and not 77 cents. I'm hunting down the legit numbers now.Do you have some numbers on that one? Because a quick Google search would seem to indicate otherwise if we're comparing job-to-job instead of aggregates.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/freekve...s-between-men-and-women-sexist-or-functional/
http://blogs.payscale.com/salary_report_kris_cowan/2012/05/do-men-really-earn-more-than-women.html
Bear in mind that in most cases, women make different job choices than men. They tend to work less hours, they don't take on super hazardous jobs, and they tend to be the ones raising their family more than men are. They tend to be the ones who take the off from work to pick up sick kids from school, take kids to the doctor, and any other of numbers of factors. Maybe someday it will become more normal for men to do this stuff in the workplace. I'm not ragging on men, but really, in a workplace atmosphere, women are the ones who are expected to be the ones to deal with these things. (There's a whole other conversation about why women get mandatory maternity leave but men have to take unpaid time off if they don't have vacation time that I won't get into.)
(Also childless women tend to make more than men)
#12
strawman
strawman
So is anyone here actually going to read the bill? Anyone? No? I didn't think so. Enjoy your media moderated echo chamber.
#13
Dei
Secondly:
http://www.consad.com/content/reports/Gender Wage Gap Final Report.pdf
Dei
I'm a woman, therefore my male coworkers would think it's hot and no one would call HR.Actually, you're not allowed to go around comparing women's apples. Someone will eventually call HR.
Secondly:
http://www.consad.com/content/reports/Gender Wage Gap Final Report.pdf
#14
Adam
Adam
Reading the bill, I found this little bit interesting:
SEC. 5. NEGOTIATION SKILLS TRAINING FOR GIRLS AND WOMEN.
(a) Program Authorized-
(1) IN GENERAL- The Secretary of Labor, after consultation with the Secretary of Education, is authorized to establish and carry out a grant program.
(2) GRANTS- In carrying out the program, the Secretary of Labor may make grants on a competitive basis to eligible entities, to carry out negotiation skills training programs for girls and women.
(3) ELIGIBLE ENTITIES- To be eligible to receive a grant under this subsection, an entity shall be a public agency, such as a State, a local government in a metropolitan statistical area (as defined by the Office of Management and Budget), a State educational agency, or a local educational agency, a private nonprofit organization, or a community-based organization.
(4) APPLICATION- To be eligible to receive a grant under this subsection, an entity shall submit an application to the Secretary of Labor at such time, in such manner, and containing such information as the Secretary of Labor may require.
(5) USE OF FUNDS- An entity that receives a grant under this subsection shall use the funds made available through the grant to carry out an effective negotiation skills training program that empowers girls and women. The training provided through the program shall help girls and women strengthen their negotiation skills to allow the girls and women to obtain higher salaries and rates of compensation that are equal to those paid to similarly situated male employees.
(b) Incorporating Training Into Existing Programs- The Secretary of Labor and the Secretary of Education shall issue regulations or policy guidance that provides for integrating the negotiation skills training, to the extent practicable, into programs authorized under--
(1) in the case of the Secretary of Education, the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 6301 et seq.), the Carl D. Perkins Career and Technical Education Act of 2006 (20 U.S.C. 2301 et seq.), the Higher Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 1001 et seq.), and other programs carried out by the Department of Education that the Secretary of Education determines to be appropriate; and
(2) in the case of the Secretary of Labor, the Workforce Investment Act of 1998 (29 U.S.C. 2801 et seq.), and other programs carried out by the Department of Labor that the Secretary of Labor determines to be appropriate.
(c) Report- Not later than 1 year after the date of enactment of this Act, and annually thereafter, the Secretary of Labor and the Secretary of Education shall prepare and submit to Congress a report describing the activities conducted under this section and evaluating the effectiveness of such activities in achieving the purposes of this Act.
#15
Ravenpoe
Ravenpoe
Look, republicans want women to be paid the same as men, they just want them to have a transvaginal ultrasound first.
#16
GasBandit
... oh wait, you're SERIOUS?
GasBandit
Anyone who doesn't think there's a war on women by the right either do not read/watch the news, are in denial, or are a member of Congress.
... oh wait, you're SERIOUS?
#17
Dave
Dave
I stand by my statement. The recent rulings on things from women's health to Planned Parenthood to the demonization of birth control all show a marked increase in an attempt to marginalize women and women's rights. Nearly all of these efforts - and I only mentioned the national ones, if you go to the state level they get even wackier - are done by republicans, usually under the auspices of kowtowing to the religious right, regardless of what the constitution and founding fathers have to say about church/state.
But you can continue to post your snarky gifs. That's your schtick and I respect it.
But you can continue to post your snarky gifs. That's your schtick and I respect it.
#18
Krisken
Oh dear oh dear...
Krisken
No no no, you're doing it all wrong.But you can continue to post your snarky gifs. That's your schtick and I respect it.
Oh dear oh dear...
#19
GasBandit
GasBandit
You've fallen victim to the distraction thrashing. The whole "war on women" is a fabricated crisis invented by democrats and teaser-trailered by George Stephanopolous when he asked "do you want to ban birth control" out of the blue back in early January when he was mediating the GOP New Hampshire primary debate. Nobody had the faintest inkling of where GS got this out-of-left-field question. Within a month it became obvious it was to set up for Obama's attempt to force religious institutions to pay for birth control regardless of religious stipulations on them. Then, the talking point suddenly became anybody who was for maintaining the status of birth control as it was pre-February wanted to ban it and was part of the republican "war on women." (this is the same logic that had unions screaming that having to pay 5% of costs was "taking away your pension.") And nobody but die hard, dyed-in-the-wool leftists are buying it. Not even women, among whom traditionally-democrat-leaning support for Obama over Romney has been free-falling - from 19 to 7% and now 3%. Economy? What economy! Didn't you hear there's a WAR ON WOMEN?!I stand by my statement. The recent rulings on things from women's health to Planned Parenthood to the demonization of birth control all show a marked increase in an attempt to marginalize women and women's rights. Nearly all of these efforts - and I only mentioned the national ones, if you go to the state level they get even wackier - are done by republicans, usually under the auspices of kowtowing to the religious right, regardless of what the constitution and founding fathers have to say about church/state.
But you can continue to post your snarky gifs. That's your schtick and I respect it.
#20
Krisken
Krisken
Horse shit.
#22
Krisken
Krisken
No, you misunderstand. Calling it a "war on women" is stupid. Saying that there isn't an unprecedented push against women's health issues and pay discrimination preventative measures is a level of willful ignorance that borders on the flat earth society.
#23
ElJuski
ElJuski
lolololololololololololololol
#24
GasBandit
GasBandit
You mean pay discrimination wasn't already illegal, and the stalling of this bill in a procedural vote means they're kicked back into the 19th century? OMG!No, you misunderstand. Calling it a "war on women" is stupid. Saying that there isn't an unprecedented push against women's health issues and pay discrimination preventative measures is a level of willful ignorance that borders on the flat earth society.
#25
Krisken
Krisken
Just because it's illegal, doesn't mean it's being properly enforced or has the proper deterrents. You know better than that.You mean pay discrimination wasn't already illegal, and the stalling of this bill in a procedural vote means they're kicked back into the 19th century? OMG!
#26
GasBandit
GasBandit
Just because this one bill hasn't blocked doesn't mean that there hasn't already been a veritable highway paved with bricks of legislation on this issue going back 50 years, even through 2009's Lilly Ledbetter act. How much legislation does there need to be, how often, and does it being in the name of "women's rights" mean the bill is above opposition? All this bill did was make suing a more attractive prospect. All that's going to do is make an employer think twice about hiring in the first place.Just because it's illegal, doesn't mean it's being properly enforced or has the proper deterrents. You know better than that.
#27
Krisken
Paying slaves didn't destroy big business. 40 hour work weeks didn't kill big business. Removing child labor didn't wreck big business. All these things were screamed as unfair to business, and I have to tell ya, they seem to be doing just fine.
Krisken
First bold phrase answer- until it works. Second bold phrase- that's a crock. Companies hire when they need people. If they are terrified that employees can talk about their wages and not get fired for it or need to be more open about their pay practices, then I have little sympathy for them.Just because this one bill hasn't blocked doesn't mean that there hasn't already been a veritable highway paved with bricks of legislation on this issue going back 50 years, even through 2009's Lilly Ledbetter act. How much legislation does there need to be, how often, and does it being in the name of "women's rights" mean the bill is above opposition? All this bill did was make suing a more attractive prospect. All that's going to do is make an employer think twice about hiring in the first place.
Paying slaves didn't destroy big business. 40 hour work weeks didn't kill big business. Removing child labor didn't wreck big business. All these things were screamed as unfair to business, and I have to tell ya, they seem to be doing just fine.
#28
Adam
Adam
The War on Drugs didn't work, the War on Terror hasn't exactly received kudos, but the War on Women, that one is certainly proceeding full steam ahead.
#29
Covar
Covar
Since when has it required the Congress to affect the way current laws are enforced?
#30
ElJuski
ElJuski
also, I really hate it when people say "fuck this country" even though they live pretty cush lives. The United States is flawed just like any other group of people under social contract. It's not like there's another country out there that's twiddling about being perfect. At least in the United States you have the ability to mouth off, which is awesome.
#31
Charlie Don't Surf
Charlie Don't Surf
I just don't believe I should stop wanting this country to be better because there are worse countries out there.also, I really hate it when people say "fuck this country" even though they live pretty cush lives. The United States is flawed just like any other group of people under social contract. It's not like there's another country out there that's twiddling about being perfect. At least in the United States you have the ability to mouth off, which is awesome.
#32
ElJuski
ElJuski
There's a difference in wanting your country to be better and saying "fuck this country!" When you say the latter you sound like a snively entitled high-school kid.I just don't believe I should stop wanting this country to be better because there are worse countries out there.
#33
MindDetective
MindDetective
Here is the relevant paragraph in the conclusion:I'm a woman, therefore my male coworkers would think it's hot and no one would call HR.
Secondly:
http://www.consad.com/content/reports/Gender Wage Gap Final Report.pdf
They go on to say there may be as yet unidentified variables that can account for some of the rest of the difference. The variables they are referring to, btw, are items that influence job experience and motivation, such as having children, interrupting one's career, education, etc. These are generally considered non-discriminatory variables.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.
#34
Charlie Don't Surf
Charlie Don't Surf
I wish I was a better / level-headed / whatever sort of person, but this stuff upsets me and makes me feel incredibly helpless (no matter how I vote or which planned parenthood I donate to) and sometimes all I can muster is a frustrated "fuck this country" or "fuck the police"There's a difference in wanting your country to be better and saying "fuck this country!" When you say the latter you sound like a snively entitled high-school kid.
#35
Ravenpoe
Ravenpoe
I wish I was a better / level-headed / whatever sort of person, but this stuff upsets me and makes me feel incredibly helpless (no matter how I vote or which planned parenthood I donate to) and sometimes all I can muster is a frustrated "fuck this country" or "fuck the police"
#36
PatrThom
--Patrick
PatrThom
I would argue that this might be because a disproportionate percentage of childless women are those who feel they have Something To Prove, and so decide to remain childless in order to further that goal. Also, they would be (by definition) more highly motivated.(Also childless women tend to make more than men)
--Patrick
#37
Necronic
But they didn't. They chose to take a legitimately important issue and instead of thinking of their constituents they only thought of the upcoming elections. It's cheap politics and what it says to me more than "Republicans hate women" is that "Democrats will use women". This issue has turned me off of democrats more than anything I've seen in a while, last thing of this magnitude was claiming we would leave Iraq immediately if we elected a Democrat to the presidency, which was as dishonest as it would have been irresponsible if it was true.
And as for the "77c on the $" stat, that is a completely worthless statistic that ignores SOOOO much, only looking at median income. Not career length. Not race. Not age. Not education. The numbers, when you take that into account, still show a significant wage difference, but when you START with a lie its hard for me to care about the rest.
Necronic
The problem I had with this legislation, more than anything else, was that it wasn't just trying to fix issues with the old laws, it was adding a BUNCH of new ones. It over-reached (see Adamom's post). I would go so far as to say that it intentionally over-reached just so that it would be rejected so then the democrats could point and say "Oh look at what THEY did!" The dems knew they couldn't pass this. They also probably knew that if they scaled it back they could have passed some of it.Just because it's illegal, doesn't mean it's being properly enforced or has the proper deterrents. You know better than that.
But they didn't. They chose to take a legitimately important issue and instead of thinking of their constituents they only thought of the upcoming elections. It's cheap politics and what it says to me more than "Republicans hate women" is that "Democrats will use women". This issue has turned me off of democrats more than anything I've seen in a while, last thing of this magnitude was claiming we would leave Iraq immediately if we elected a Democrat to the presidency, which was as dishonest as it would have been irresponsible if it was true.
And as for the "77c on the $" stat, that is a completely worthless statistic that ignores SOOOO much, only looking at median income. Not career length. Not race. Not age. Not education. The numbers, when you take that into account, still show a significant wage difference, but when you START with a lie its hard for me to care about the rest.
#38
Krisken
Krisken
Since you quoted me...
An American Association of University Women study done in 2007 found that taking into consideration college major, occupation, industry, sector, hours, work experience, education, GPA, age, race/ethnicity, religion, marital status and number of children, there is still a 5% wage disparity between men and women just one year out of college and it increases to 12%, which cannot be explained by those factors.
An American Association of University Women study done in 2007 found that taking into consideration college major, occupation, industry, sector, hours, work experience, education, GPA, age, race/ethnicity, religion, marital status and number of children, there is still a 5% wage disparity between men and women just one year out of college and it increases to 12%, which cannot be explained by those factors.
#39
AshburnerX
AshburnerX
I think you and I have seen an entirely different Congress the past 2 years. They wouldn't pass it if it gave all Republican Congressmen a pay raise and the legal right to punch Democrats in the face.The dems knew they couldn't pass this. They also probably knew that if they scaled it back they could have passed some of it.
#40
Bubble181
Bubble181
Y'know what always gets me? Replace "women" and "girls" in this kind of bills with "men" and "boys", and suddenly you'd have thousands of self-styled feminists flaming and attacking it. Women are a majority - give it time and they'll be fine as long as some people don't cling to outmoded ideas.
Yes, there's a wage gap. As has been state before, this can largely be explained (but not entirely) by non-discriminatory means (such as maternity leave, shorter hours, etc etc). A study in Belgium and the Netherlands showed that women also pay less attention to pay and more to intangible benefits (ability to leave early, more vacation days, etc etc) when negotiating for their job (not applicable for all jobs, of course). Let's also not forget that, like most of those bogus comparisons like "only 25% of top managers are women! We're SEXIST!" ignores age - most top management is 45+ with 20+ years of experience. People in the '80s were more sexist than we are today - lower management is closer to 45%/55%, which is perfectly acceptable. Those numbers won't translate completely up the ladder (because women stay at home more often for kids and pregnancy etc etc), but it'll improve.
Same logic forced Belgian political parties to ahve 1/2 of their lists be female. I can understand the sentiment, but in practice it meant that a whole lot of men with experience and a passion for politics lost their places and a whole bunch of wifes-of and friends-of others suddenly got bumped on a list somewhere while they couldn't care less. Which, of course, means most of those women were less active/less willing to sacrifice their personal life/less experienced, which again helped to reinforce the prejudice of "women can't do politics". Which is the exact opposite of the intended goal. Patience is something people don't seem to understand.
Anyway, the ever growing connection if the church with politics in the US is what concerns me most - it's odd that the republicans, supposedly fighting for freedom of thought - are the ones coming ever closer to reintegrating church and state. A country run by fundamental christians is as dangerous and unfree as one run by fundamentalist muslims, don't doubt it.
Yes, there's a wage gap. As has been state before, this can largely be explained (but not entirely) by non-discriminatory means (such as maternity leave, shorter hours, etc etc). A study in Belgium and the Netherlands showed that women also pay less attention to pay and more to intangible benefits (ability to leave early, more vacation days, etc etc) when negotiating for their job (not applicable for all jobs, of course). Let's also not forget that, like most of those bogus comparisons like "only 25% of top managers are women! We're SEXIST!" ignores age - most top management is 45+ with 20+ years of experience. People in the '80s were more sexist than we are today - lower management is closer to 45%/55%, which is perfectly acceptable. Those numbers won't translate completely up the ladder (because women stay at home more often for kids and pregnancy etc etc), but it'll improve.
Same logic forced Belgian political parties to ahve 1/2 of their lists be female. I can understand the sentiment, but in practice it meant that a whole lot of men with experience and a passion for politics lost their places and a whole bunch of wifes-of and friends-of others suddenly got bumped on a list somewhere while they couldn't care less. Which, of course, means most of those women were less active/less willing to sacrifice their personal life/less experienced, which again helped to reinforce the prejudice of "women can't do politics". Which is the exact opposite of the intended goal. Patience is something people don't seem to understand.
Anyway, the ever growing connection if the church with politics in the US is what concerns me most - it's odd that the republicans, supposedly fighting for freedom of thought - are the ones coming ever closer to reintegrating church and state. A country run by fundamental christians is as dangerous and unfree as one run by fundamentalist muslims, don't doubt it.
#41
ElJuski
But yeah, this equal pay issue, **sigh**.
ElJuski
For sure, and arguing about this really takes away from what I agree is this new bullshit; I'm just saying, it takes away a lot when you match it with something like, "fuck this place".I wish I was a better / level-headed / whatever sort of person, but this stuff upsets me and makes me feel incredibly helpless (no matter how I vote or which planned parenthood I donate to) and sometimes all I can muster is a frustrated "fuck this country" or "fuck the police"
But yeah, this equal pay issue, **sigh**.
#42
Covar
Covar
Don't forget the War on Poverty. That failed miserably too.The War on Drugs didn't work, the War on Terror hasn't exactly received kudos, but the War on Women, that one is certainly proceeding full steam ahead.
#43
SeraRelm
SeraRelm
Next up, the war on war.
(also, I do get paid less.)
(also, I do get paid less.)
#44
Bubble181
Bubble181
But that's because you're a homosexual. That's still a valid reason to discriminate, right?Next up, the war on war.
(also, I do get paid less.)
#45
SeraRelm
SeraRelm
Yes.
#46
Ravenpoe
Ravenpoe
According to this thread, it's because homosexuals take less risks in jobs, or spend more time away from work being gay.
#47
SeraRelm
SeraRelm
Sounds about right.
#48
Krisken
Krisken
I believe it's watching Glee and decorating their homes. Yeah, that's it.According to this thread, it's because homosexuals take less risks in jobs, or spend more time away from work being gay.
#49
Cajungal
Cajungal
And auditioning for Bravo reality shows?
#50
MindDetective
MindDetective
That coincides with what Dei posted as well. She was just making the point that it isn't a 77 cents on the dollar gap like so many claim.Since you quoted me...
An American Association of University Women study done in 2007 found that taking into consideration college major, occupation, industry, sector, hours, work experience, education, GPA, age, race/ethnicity, religion, marital status and number of children, there is still a 5% wage disparity between men and women just one year out of college and it increases to 12%, which cannot be explained by those factors.
#51
SeraRelm
SeraRelm
You guys wound me with your stereotyping.
#52
PatrThom
--Patrick
PatrThom
Ayyy-men.Anyway, the ever growing connection if the church with politics in the US is what concerns me most
--Patrick
#53
Covar
Covar
Don't worry, Charlie will defend you!You guys wound me with your stereotyping.
#55
@Li3n
You don't have to be one to be discriminated against, remember those 1000 slaves the spartans had with them at Thermopile? No, yeah, no one else does either...
ALSO: Hey everyone, ol'GasBandit is back... we missed you little buddy.
@Li3n
When where they ever a minority?bla bla not actually a minority anymore
You don't have to be one to be discriminated against, remember those 1000 slaves the spartans had with them at Thermopile? No, yeah, no one else does either...
ALSO: Hey everyone, ol'GasBandit is back... we missed you little buddy.
#56
GasBandit
(Thermopylae)
GasBandit
Heh... thermo-pile. Sounds like flaming hemorrhoids.When where they ever a minority?
You don't have to be one to be discriminated against, remember those 1000 slaves the spartans had with them at Thermopile? No, yeah, no one else does either...
ALSO: Hey everyone, ol'GasBandit is back... we missed you little buddy.
(Thermopylae)
#57
@Li3n
I knew i shouldn't have trusted that auto-correct... but i was too lazy to check wiki...
@Li3n
Thermopylae = Thermoplastic... so i got it wrong either way...Heh... thermo-pile. Sounds like flaming hemorrhoids.
(Thermopylae)
I knew i shouldn't have trusted that auto-correct... but i was too lazy to check wiki...
#58
blotsfan
blotsfan
So as a man I should be glad about this, right?
#59
Krisken
Krisken
Sure, if you're this guy.So as a man I should be glad about this, right?
#60
North_Ranger
North_Ranger
Who's that? Robin Williams in a wig and a false nose?
#61
Krisken
Krisken
Nope, that's Glenn Grothman. Notice how even on the day of this photo he didn't bother to brush his teeth, which is covered in plaque? That's my Wisconsin State Senator.Who's that? Robin Williams in a wig and a false nose?
#62
Norris
Norris
Except I'm pretty sure it was a requirement that religious employers give their female employees the option of paying a little extra to buy birth control coverage.Within a month it became obvious it was to set up for Obama's attempt to force religious institutions to pay for birth control regardless of religious stipulations on them.
#63
Terrik
Terrik
Don't you see how that would still offend certain religious institutions, even if they had to pay "a little extra"?Except I'm pretty sure it was a requirement that religious employers give their female employees the option of paying a little extra to buy birth control coverage.
#64
Norris
Besides, Democrats didn't manufacture all of the invasive and possibly unconstitutionally restrictive "anti-abortion" bills nationwide nor did they manufacture the right wing punditry's downright vile comments about Sandra Fluke nor did they manufacture Rick Santorum's viability as a candidate. Gas Bandit's thesis, that the democrats manufactured the Republican push against women's autonomy out of whole cloth as a distraction from the economy, is full of shit no matter how you slice it. More than one issue, or set of related issues, can be important to the electorate at a time.
Norris
Yes, but those religious institutions are offended that birth control exists at all. I've not bought the argument that requiring employers to give their employees more options that those employees would then pay for with their own wages puts an unfair onus on employers. Seems that these religious institutions don't have much trust in the strength of their employees' faith.Don't you see how that would still offend certain religious institutions, even if they had to pay "a little extra"?
Besides, Democrats didn't manufacture all of the invasive and possibly unconstitutionally restrictive "anti-abortion" bills nationwide nor did they manufacture the right wing punditry's downright vile comments about Sandra Fluke nor did they manufacture Rick Santorum's viability as a candidate. Gas Bandit's thesis, that the democrats manufactured the Republican push against women's autonomy out of whole cloth as a distraction from the economy, is full of shit no matter how you slice it. More than one issue, or set of related issues, can be important to the electorate at a time.
#65
Terrik
Terrik
It shouldn't be a matter of a test of faith. Religious institutions, as is their right in this country, should not be forced to even give the option if they choose not to. I'll be honest, I'm not entirely clear on this issue. When you say the employees pay for it--does it mean they completely pay for it with their own wages, or does the religious institution still have to be a small part of it? If the former, then whether the option exists or not is irrelevant. It's paid for completely by the employee either way no matter how it's stated on paper. If the words on the paper happen to offend said religious institution, then why the grumbling about them wanting the wording out entirely? If the former, then I disagree with having the religious institution being forced to pay even a penny. It strikes me as infringing on their rights as given by law. If an employee of a religious institution wants birth control paid for badly enough, they are free to find other work that would provide that particular benefit. Me? I'm a huge fan of birth control, but whether I like it or not has nothing to do with the law.Yes, but those religious institutions are offended that birth control exists at all. I've not bought the argument that requiring employers to give their employees more options that those employees would then pay for with their own wages puts an unfair onus on employers. Seems that these religious institutions don't have much trust in the strength of their employees' faith.
It's all about how ya spin it, baby!Besides, Democrats didn't manufacture all of the invasive and possibly unconstitutionally restrictive "anti-abortion" bills nationwide nor did they manufacture the right wing punditry's downright vile comments about Sandra Fluke nor did they manufacture Rick Santorum's viability as a candidate. Gas Bandit's thesis, that the democrats manufactured the Republican push against women's autonomy out of whole cloth as a distraction from the economy, is full of shit no matter how you slice it. More than one issue, or set of related issues, can be important to the electorate at a time.
#66
strawman
Employees likely won't opt-in when they aren't going to use it, so there won't be a pool of some people using it and some people not using it to spread the cost around. Everyone who opts-in will be pulling out of the funds.
If they make the cost the same for everyone, it's going to cost more than $30 a month for the basic pill, because some employees are going to choose the IUD, depo, nuva ring, surgery, etc. Therefore employees who only want the pill or another cheap method, or who can't afford more than $30/month won't choose to opt-in, they'll get their control from another provider. Therefore the cost will go up because only those employees choosing more expensive options would opt-in. Worse still, some forms are big one time expenses that aren't recurring. So an employee might choose to opt in for a month, or a year, have a $500-$1,500 IUD insertion, vasectomy, or tubal ligation procedure, then opt-out, thus extracting a great deal of money from the insurance without coming close to covering it.
Generally, even if an insurance company doesn't provide the benefit, employees can get the insurance bargained rate at their provider if they ask, so having an opt-in just to get the lower rate doesn't buy the employees anything either.
The only way "insurance" works when talking about regular medical costs is if everyone opts-in, especially those that don't need or use it.
So no, it's a false position to assert that the institution and other employees would bear absolutely no cost or burden for the birth control services, even if there's an "additional cost" and especially if it's "opt-in".
If the employees are happy to bear the costs themselves, they should do so directly with their provider. Insurance doesn't work this way, and to force it breaks the model in a way that ultimately leaves the employer holding the bag.
strawman
Insurance is meant to spread risk across the entire group. Therefore if the institution made it so the insurance company allowed people to pay extra for a non-risk purchase, then unless they pay the actual cost of their personal birth control, the institution and all its employees, by definition, pay some part of that cost. Therefore the institution is using funds, probably donated in some part by members of that institution, to support a practice they are morally opposed to.those employees would then pay for with their own wages
Employees likely won't opt-in when they aren't going to use it, so there won't be a pool of some people using it and some people not using it to spread the cost around. Everyone who opts-in will be pulling out of the funds.
If they make the cost the same for everyone, it's going to cost more than $30 a month for the basic pill, because some employees are going to choose the IUD, depo, nuva ring, surgery, etc. Therefore employees who only want the pill or another cheap method, or who can't afford more than $30/month won't choose to opt-in, they'll get their control from another provider. Therefore the cost will go up because only those employees choosing more expensive options would opt-in. Worse still, some forms are big one time expenses that aren't recurring. So an employee might choose to opt in for a month, or a year, have a $500-$1,500 IUD insertion, vasectomy, or tubal ligation procedure, then opt-out, thus extracting a great deal of money from the insurance without coming close to covering it.
Generally, even if an insurance company doesn't provide the benefit, employees can get the insurance bargained rate at their provider if they ask, so having an opt-in just to get the lower rate doesn't buy the employees anything either.
The only way "insurance" works when talking about regular medical costs is if everyone opts-in, especially those that don't need or use it.
So no, it's a false position to assert that the institution and other employees would bear absolutely no cost or burden for the birth control services, even if there's an "additional cost" and especially if it's "opt-in".
If the employees are happy to bear the costs themselves, they should do so directly with their provider. Insurance doesn't work this way, and to force it breaks the model in a way that ultimately leaves the employer holding the bag.
#67
fade
fade
Devil's advocate. What if I have moral qualms about being obligated to pay for a share of bob's 400,000 dollar heart surgery when he doesn't eat right or exercise either? Can I opt out of my premiums going to that, too? That was a lifestyle choice on his part, and I don't feel like my money should support his debauchery. (Not sure if that level of insurance in legally required, but let's say it is for sake of argument.)
#68
Ravenpoe
Ravenpoe
Can I make sure none of my insurance money helps the gays?
Also, I'm not comfortable having any of my money help people of French descent, so none of that please.
Also, I'm not comfortable having any of my money help people of French descent, so none of that please.
#69
Covar
Covar
You can just not get insurance.Devil's advocate. What if I have moral qualms about being obligated to pay for a share of bob's 400,000 dollar heart surgery when he doesn't eat right or exercise either? Can I opt out of my premiums going to that, too? That was a lifestyle choice on his part, and I don't feel like my money should support his debauchery. (Not sure if that level of insurance in legally required, but let's say it is for sake of argument.)
#70
strawman
Buying insurance for birth control is like buying insurance for beer. There's no risk of buying beer accidentally, you either buy it or you don't. If an actuary has to make a table showing cost vs risk, the risk is 100% for those that choose to buy birth control, and 0% for those that don't. This type of system only works when everyone, beer drinkers and teetotalers alike, are forced to pay into the pot regardless of their consumption.
Buying insurance for heart surgery for an obese person is like buying car insurance for a teenage driver with a cellphone. Chances are good you will need it more than a skinny person, but it's still just a statistical risk that can be calculated and isn't a given. There is correlation, and even some cause and effect, but no guarantee.
Besides, right now organizations can trailer insurance plans according to their own policies. In fact many insurance carriers now have cheaper plans with requirements that employees meet healthy goals. So if your employer opts in to those plans, you may find that you have to take a yearly physical and labwork, and if you don't meet their goals you may pay more than someone who is, according to their tables, healthy, and thus poses a lower risk for expensive health care.
But if an organization was morally opposed to obesity, they could in fact get insurance that doesn't cover certain procedures that would only apply to obese employees. Right now employers have the right to trailer their plans according to their needs and employees have the right to accept or reject an employer sponsored plan and obtain their own health insurance if they deem their employers health insurance unacceptable.
Just because you like in new York doesn't mean you have to buy your groceries there, and it's not new Yorks job to make sure you can get everything you want at the price you want. You can order from an online store, or drive to another city to fulfill your needs.
Your employer shouldn't have to meet all your needs if they choose not to. It's likely that they will miss out on some great employees if they restrict their benefits. But government regulation in this area isn't necessary. Employees have several choices for birth control even if they stay with their employer, and many more choices if they find another employer.
strawman
Ah, but heart surgery is a risk, not a regular cost. It fits the insurance paradigm.Devil's advocate. What if I have moral qualms about being obligated to pay for a share of bob's 400,000 dollar heart surgery when he doesn't eat right or exercise either? Can I opt out of my premiums going to that, too? That was a lifestyle choice on his part, and I don't feel like my money should support his debauchery. (Not sure if that level of insurance in legally required, but let's say it is for sake of argument.)
Buying insurance for birth control is like buying insurance for beer. There's no risk of buying beer accidentally, you either buy it or you don't. If an actuary has to make a table showing cost vs risk, the risk is 100% for those that choose to buy birth control, and 0% for those that don't. This type of system only works when everyone, beer drinkers and teetotalers alike, are forced to pay into the pot regardless of their consumption.
Buying insurance for heart surgery for an obese person is like buying car insurance for a teenage driver with a cellphone. Chances are good you will need it more than a skinny person, but it's still just a statistical risk that can be calculated and isn't a given. There is correlation, and even some cause and effect, but no guarantee.
Besides, right now organizations can trailer insurance plans according to their own policies. In fact many insurance carriers now have cheaper plans with requirements that employees meet healthy goals. So if your employer opts in to those plans, you may find that you have to take a yearly physical and labwork, and if you don't meet their goals you may pay more than someone who is, according to their tables, healthy, and thus poses a lower risk for expensive health care.
But if an organization was morally opposed to obesity, they could in fact get insurance that doesn't cover certain procedures that would only apply to obese employees. Right now employers have the right to trailer their plans according to their needs and employees have the right to accept or reject an employer sponsored plan and obtain their own health insurance if they deem their employers health insurance unacceptable.
Just because you like in new York doesn't mean you have to buy your groceries there, and it's not new Yorks job to make sure you can get everything you want at the price you want. You can order from an online store, or drive to another city to fulfill your needs.
Your employer shouldn't have to meet all your needs if they choose not to. It's likely that they will miss out on some great employees if they restrict their benefits. But government regulation in this area isn't necessary. Employees have several choices for birth control even if they stay with their employer, and many more choices if they find another employer.
#71
Covar
Covar
I would love new Yorks. Either the mini or the full sized ones would be great.
#72
strawman
strawman
I don't spend nearly as much time proof reading and editing on the iPad as I would on the computer. Due to my predilection to waste copious amounts of time here, I have halforums blocked on all my computers.
As a side effect, I'm learning to type much faster on the iPad.
As a side effect, I'm learning to type much faster on the iPad.
#73
Covar
Covar
I saw that and figured auto-correct, let me guess you type in lowercase and let iOS apply proper capitalization?
#74
strawman
strawman
It actually tried to go with new Yorkshire at first. I got rid of the shire and went, "close enough" since Yorkshire might have confused some, but improper caps probably wouldn't.
You know you else tried to get rid of the shire? Saruman, that's who.
You know you else tried to get rid of the shire? Saruman, that's who.
#75
fade
fade
I'm having great difficulty swallowing the risk argument. Partly because the same insurance plan covers childbirth usually, which is a statistical risk of not using birth control. And partly because my insurance already covers things that are regular costs, like well visits and dental cleaning. They do this because their risk mitigators, like birth control reduces the risk of unplanned childbirth costs and subsequent well and sick child coverage.
I'd understand the moral stuff and the small government stuff (even if I disagreed), but I'm not really feeling the risk thing.
I'd understand the moral stuff and the small government stuff (even if I disagreed), but I'm not really feeling the risk thing.
#76
strawman
strawman
The risk only comes into play if you let people choose to add birth control covage as an opt in. If everyone has to participate in birth control coverage, or no one has to participate, then you are correct, it's just like other health maintenance costs and risk mitigators.
However it breaks down if people can choose to opt in or not. At that point, no matter how you slice it, the employer ends up using some of their funds to pay for birth control.
The only problem I see is if the government tries to force this "compromise" - it breaks the insurance model, and still forces the employer to cover some of the costs.
However it breaks down if people can choose to opt in or not. At that point, no matter how you slice it, the employer ends up using some of their funds to pay for birth control.
The only problem I see is if the government tries to force this "compromise" - it breaks the insurance model, and still forces the employer to cover some of the costs.
#77
Bubble181
Bubble181
For the moral argument: no offense people, but the Constitution and any other law you care to name doesn't give those religious institutions any moral ground to stand on to deny rights or whatever. Because they're not people. They're institutions. The employee has the right to choice; the employer does not have a right to determine what they're willing to pay for. Firstly, as Ravenpoe said - you can't discriminate against certain people getting your money; the same insurance pays for circumcision as well (in some places). Secondly, institutions have 0 universal/human rights. The corporation as a legal person is a moral fiction.
Using the pill is just as much a matter of choice to REDUCE healthcare costs as a yearly visit to the dentist or a GP. It's a way of avoiding unwanted children, complications at child birth, child rearing, ... It makes sense from an insurance perspective. In fact, from an insurance perspective, it'd be more intelligent and financially interesting to say you HAVE to use birth control as long as you're not trying for a baby. Just like it makes sense to force people to go see a dentist every year, or an optician every few years, or women over 40 to get a mammography every year, etc etc. I admit that may be a tad too far, but still....
Anywya, there's no reason whatsoever why (most) forms of birth control would be against the Bible. Spiral and such (which don't prevent fertilization but prevent nesting of the egg) I can see. Most pills (and the Nuva etc) cause no eggs to be developed... And nobody's saying that using the pill leads to pre-marital sex, or vice versa. Premarital sex is wrong and evil - using a pill to ease your menstruation isn't.
Using the pill is just as much a matter of choice to REDUCE healthcare costs as a yearly visit to the dentist or a GP. It's a way of avoiding unwanted children, complications at child birth, child rearing, ... It makes sense from an insurance perspective. In fact, from an insurance perspective, it'd be more intelligent and financially interesting to say you HAVE to use birth control as long as you're not trying for a baby. Just like it makes sense to force people to go see a dentist every year, or an optician every few years, or women over 40 to get a mammography every year, etc etc. I admit that may be a tad too far, but still....
Anywya, there's no reason whatsoever why (most) forms of birth control would be against the Bible. Spiral and such (which don't prevent fertilization but prevent nesting of the egg) I can see. Most pills (and the Nuva etc) cause no eggs to be developed... And nobody's saying that using the pill leads to pre-marital sex, or vice versa. Premarital sex is wrong and evil - using a pill to ease your menstruation isn't.
#78
strawman
If, instead, you mean that the employer does not get to determine how they spend their resources, then I simply have to disagree with you there. Perhaps in a non-capitalist system where companies are not autonomous that would make sense, but that's not the economy we're talking about here.
strawman
I assume you mean the employer does not have the right to determine what the employee will pay for.the employer does not have a right to determine what they're willing to pay for.
If, instead, you mean that the employer does not get to determine how they spend their resources, then I simply have to disagree with you there. Perhaps in a non-capitalist system where companies are not autonomous that would make sense, but that's not the economy we're talking about here.
#79
Bubble181
Problem stems, in part, from the wishy-washy version of healthcare you're trying to have - keep the private insurance companies in business while still forcing everyone to have insurance, yet not giving them monopolies or too much power. If healthcare was a separate tax (13.5% of gross income + 11% of employer's taxes in Belgium, for example) collected by the government and redistributed to the private corporations/people/etc/ involved (whether a third-party-payer system as the UK, or some sort of rebates after paying yourself, or whatever - there's a host of options), it'd be more clear-cut.
Anyway, we'll just agree to disagree. I can't wrap my head around some of the things Americans like to think of as self evident (No, I don't mean the constitution...I just have a very different idea of what a government could/should/ought to be allowed to do and what it shouldn't....And I'm considered libertarian by Belgian standards, for the record)
Bubble181
...Let me rephrase. If health care is made a legal obligation, you have to pay for healthcare. I'm sure many a corporation would gladly not pay taxes; they're still forced to do so. Moral grounds for not participating in a society-wide system doesn't work. Much like the people over here who like to take the government to court every couple of years becase there's taxx money going to army upkeep, which is all wrong and evil because they have weapons and those should be banned or some such idiocy - it's not a personal choice. Society says we need an army and the government pays for it - so we all pay for it. If a democratic majority decides you need general health care, and the government decides how/what/where to pay - good luck not paying it.I assume you mean the employer does not have the right to determine what the employee will pay for.
If, instead, you mean that the employer does not get to determine how they spend their resources, then I simply have to disagree with you there. Perhaps in a non-capitalist system where companies are not autonomous that would make sense, but that's not the economy we're talking about here.
Problem stems, in part, from the wishy-washy version of healthcare you're trying to have - keep the private insurance companies in business while still forcing everyone to have insurance, yet not giving them monopolies or too much power. If healthcare was a separate tax (13.5% of gross income + 11% of employer's taxes in Belgium, for example) collected by the government and redistributed to the private corporations/people/etc/ involved (whether a third-party-payer system as the UK, or some sort of rebates after paying yourself, or whatever - there's a host of options), it'd be more clear-cut.
Anyway, we'll just agree to disagree. I can't wrap my head around some of the things Americans like to think of as self evident (No, I don't mean the constitution...I just have a very different idea of what a government could/should/ought to be allowed to do and what it shouldn't....And I'm considered libertarian by Belgian standards, for the record)
#80
strawman
strawman
Well you and I are no too different then. If everyone is forced to pay for birth control health care, then no one should be exempt. I don't believe the government should enact a halfway measure that allows people to pick and choose. They should either declare birth control a human right, or an option.
There are too many problems with going halfway.
If it becomes a law, though, then employers will have to comply regardless.
There are too many problems with going halfway.
If it becomes a law, though, then employers will have to comply regardless.
#81
GasBandit
GasBandit
And we'll find out tomorrow if that's the case. Scuttlebutt says the mandate, at least, is on the chopping block.
#82
Shegokigo
Shegokigo
I like how some say that women should get paid less because of the pregnancy leave or birth control nonsense.
Excuse me, how does either of those benefit my situation exactly?
Simply put, it's stone age caveman, chest pounding gorilla alpha male nonsense. "I should get paid more cause I have a penis"
Excuse me, how does either of those benefit my situation exactly?
Simply put, it's stone age caveman, chest pounding gorilla alpha male nonsense. "I should get paid more cause I have a penis"
#83
GasBandit
GasBandit
Who said that?
#84
Shegokigo
Shegokigo
Oh so many guy-to-guy conversations I've heard over the years.
There is ZERO reason to pay a woman different other than sexism. There's ZERO justification for it. Any "bonuses" that a woman gets, that supposedly gives "reason" to why she's paid less, should be an "option" not a "benefit".
There is ZERO reason to pay a woman different other than sexism. There's ZERO justification for it. Any "bonuses" that a woman gets, that supposedly gives "reason" to why she's paid less, should be an "option" not a "benefit".
#85
Charlie Don't Surf
Charlie Don't Surf
I would be very very surprised if you couldn't find at least a dozen United States Elected Officials that said something like that.
#86
@Li3n
@Li3n
Well there is more of me to pay, innit.Simply put, it's stone age caveman, chest pounding gorilla alpha male nonsense. "I should get paid more cause I have a penis"
#87
Shegokigo
Shegokigo
Charlie Don't Surf - That's because the majority of the country are Jersey Shore watching mouth-breathers who elect them into office in the first place.
#88
GasBandit
GasBandit
Ah. I had the impression it was a politician, or at least a notable pundit, or perhaps someone in this or a related thread, who had made such an assertion.
I agree there's no reason to pay a woman of equal qualifications less for the same job - however, I gnash my teeth every time we hire a young female. Just when I have her trained enough to do the job (and yes, I mean every time), she gets preganant and decides to be a mom full time, leaving me to have to spend another year training the next future former traffic director.
However, I read something interesting the other day that said the career woman married to a stay-at-home dad is actually becoming a lot more common a thing now.
I agree there's no reason to pay a woman of equal qualifications less for the same job - however, I gnash my teeth every time we hire a young female. Just when I have her trained enough to do the job (and yes, I mean every time), she gets preganant and decides to be a mom full time, leaving me to have to spend another year training the next future former traffic director.
However, I read something interesting the other day that said the career woman married to a stay-at-home dad is actually becoming a lot more common a thing now.
#89
TommiR
TommiR
While I agree with you on moral grounds, I suppose the practise depends on the system and how it is used. Over here, when a couple has a child, the employer of the mother stands to lose more than the employer of the father (maternity leave 3 months, paternity leave 1-18 days). Any other optional leaves or benefits that might be shared amongst the parents are overwhelmingly taken by the mother, while the father goes back to work. All other things being equal, an employer might thus expect to get more out of a male employee than a female. Perhaps it is not 'right' for this to influence wages or hiring preferences, but I think there might be some correlation here.There is ZERO reason to pay a woman different other than sexism. There's ZERO justification for it.
I think this might be a significant part of the problem. With men, this is a lot less common.I agree there's no reason to pay a woman of equal qualifications less for the same job - however, I gnash my teeth every time we hire a young female. Just when I have her trained enough to do the job (and yes, I mean every time), she gets preganant and decides to be a mom full time, leaving me to have to spend another year training the next future former traffic director.
#90
Shegokigo
Shegokigo
Yeah, you missed the whole part where you entire paragraph means nothing to someone in my situation.While I agree with you on moral grounds, I suppose the practise depends on the system and how it is used. Over here, when a couple has a child, the employer of the mother stands to lose more than the employer of the father (maternity leave 3 months, paternity leave 1-18 days). Any other optional leaves or benefits that might be shared amongst the parents are overwhelmingly taken by the mother, while the father goes back to work. All other things being equal, an employer might thus expect to get more out of a male employee than a female. Perhaps it is not 'right' for this to influence wages or hiring preferences, but I think there might be some correlation here.
#91
PatrThom
PatrThom
Just gotta be the statistical flyer, dontcha?
--Patrick
--Patrick
#92
@Li3n
Yes, men never quit their jobs...
If there was some sort of maternity leave tax maybe you'd have a point, but paying a woman less because she might leave is ludicrous...
And the lower wages are definitely a result of women only entering the male dominated part of the work force in the past 100 years... unless you think male nannies get paid more...
@Li3n
While I agree with you on moral grounds, I suppose the practise depends on the system and how it is used. Over here, when a couple has a child, the employer of the mother stands to lose more than the employer of the father (maternity leave 3 months, paternity leave 1-18 days). Any other optional leaves or benefits that might be shared amongst the parents are overwhelmingly taken by the mother, while the father goes back to work. All other things being equal, an employer might thus expect to get more out of a male employee than a female. Perhaps it is not 'right' for this to influence wages or hiring preferences, but I think there might be some correlation here.
I think this might be a significant part of the problem. With men, this is a lot less common.
Yes, men never quit their jobs...
If there was some sort of maternity leave tax maybe you'd have a point, but paying a woman less because she might leave is ludicrous...
And the lower wages are definitely a result of women only entering the male dominated part of the work force in the past 100 years... unless you think male nannies get paid more...
#93
@Li3n
@Li3n
Well you could totally still get pregnant if you wanted to, so there...Yeah, you missed the whole part where you entire paragraph means nothing to someone in my situation.
#94
Shegokigo
Shegokigo
Exactly, it's an option.
As should getting lesser pay in turn for maternity leave.
As should getting lesser pay in turn for maternity leave.
#95
TommiR
TommiR
Didn't miss, actually. As you can read from my quote of your post, I was focussing on the 'no reason to pay a woman different than a man' part.Yeah, you missed the whole part where you entire paragraph means nothing to someone in my situation.
#96
@Li3n
@Li3n
Don't any of them come back when the maternity time is over? That's how it works over here...I agree there's no reason to pay a woman of equal qualifications less for the same job - however, I gnash my teeth every time we hire a young female. Just when I have her trained enough to do the job (and yes, I mean every time), she gets preganant and decides to be a mom full time, leaving me to have to spend another year training the next future former traffic director.
#97
TommiR
TommiR
Yes, women never quit their jobs...Yes, men never quit their jobs...
An employee taking two weeks off is nothing a robust enough organisation can't handle. An employee taking 3-10 months off requires recruiting and training somebody to fill in for them.If there was some sort of maternity leave tax maybe you'd have a point, but paying a woman less because she might leave is ludicrous...
Please clarify the point you are making.And the lower wages are definitely a result of women only entering the male dominated part of the work force in the past 100 years... unless you think male nannies get paid more...
Do you think I'm off base?Just gotta be the statistical flyer, dontcha?
#98
@Li3n
But my experience aside, that also happens when your sick etc, and could easily be handled the same way...
@Li3n
So you see how irrelevant that is...Yes, women never quit their jobs...
Well maybe where your from...An employee taking two weeks off is nothing a robust enough organisation can't handle. An employee taking 3-10 months off requires recruiting and training somebody to fill in for them.
But my experience aside, that also happens when your sick etc, and could easily be handled the same way...
Lower wages aren't about maternity, but historical context...Please clarify the point you are making.
#99
AshburnerX
AshburnerX
He mentioned that they've all decided to just become full-time, stay at home moms.Don't any of them come back when the maternity time is over? That's how it works over here...
#100
Shegokigo
Shegokigo
I was giving you the benefit of the doubt as there was no way you could have written that entire paragraph about maternity leave after I just saying that doesn't apply to me in any way.Didn't miss, actually. As you can read from my quote of your post, I was focussing on the 'no reason to pay a woman different than a man' part.
#101
Ravenpoe
Ravenpoe
And award for most appropriate avatar goes to...Yes, women never quit their jobs...
An employee taking two weeks off is nothing a robust enough organisation can't handle. An employee taking 3-10 months off requires recruiting and training somebody to fill in for them.
Please clarify the point you are making.
Do you think I'm off base?
#102
GasBandit
GasBandit
You keep saying that, but your personal situation is irrelevant to the setting of policy. You have to set policy based upon what generally happens, not based upon the single, solitary, psychotic lesbian exception.I was giving you the benefit of the doubt as there was no way you could have written that entire paragraph about maternity leave after I just saying that doesn't apply to me in any way.
#103
Shegokigo
Shegokigo
You're right, only Lesbians can't get pregnant. I forgot women who are barren, or past the age of having children totally should still get paid less for the option of maternity leave.
#104
GasBandit
GasBandit
Not only no, but one of them actually took all her paid maternity leave and THEN called to say she wasn't coming back, bilking us AND leaving me in the lurch. At least the other two were up front about quitting in advance.Don't any of them come back when the maternity time is over? That's how it works over here...
#105
Ravenpoe
Ravenpoe
Don't forget all that slacking off they do due to not being as smart or efficient as a man. And how woozy they get from being away from the kitchen for so long.You're right, only Lesbians can't get pregnant. I forgot women who are barren, or past the age of having children totally should still get paid less for the option of maternity leave.
#106
GasBandit
And for the record, Lesbians CAN get pregnant.
GasBandit
Which is changing your argument. You said three times, "me, me, me." Or do you plan to have your ovaries removed to prove the point? Regardless, the barren are still miniscule exceptions. And hiring old people of either gender has HR issues of its own.You're right, only Lesbians can't get pregnant. I forgot women who are barren, or past the age of having children totally should still get paid less for the option of maternity leave.
And for the record, Lesbians CAN get pregnant.
#107
Shegokigo
Shegokigo
I said "me me me" as an example to the case. I'm not changing anything.
I'm saying, that women who choose not to have children or cannot have children, shouldn't be paid less than men if the excuse is "They get maternity leave so they should get paid less."
That was my argument from the beginning. I'm also aware of lesbians having the OPTION of getting pregnant. Find the keyword in that sentence for me if you please.
I'm saying, that women who choose not to have children or cannot have children, shouldn't be paid less than men if the excuse is "They get maternity leave so they should get paid less."
That was my argument from the beginning. I'm also aware of lesbians having the OPTION of getting pregnant. Find the keyword in that sentence for me if you please.
#108
GasBandit
Bear in mind I don't support this line of thinking at all, I'm just illustrating the absurdity of the method you support your position.
I have the "option" to never kill anyone in my life. Does that mean we don't need to pay for police?
GasBandit
Men don't have the option of getting pregnant. The existence of the option at all means it must be accounted for. To do otherwise is to decide not to have a fire brigade until there's a fire. What if, when one of these people who "choose" not to get pregnant, suddenly decides to change her mind and get pregnant? Does she then have to give back the money?I said "me me me" as an example to the case. I'm not changing anything.
I'm saying, that women who choose not to have children or cannot have children, shouldn't be paid less than men if the excuse is "They get maternity leave so they should get paid less."
That was my argument from the beginning. I'm also aware of lesbians having the OPTION of getting pregnant. Find the keyword in that sentence for me if you please.
Bear in mind I don't support this line of thinking at all, I'm just illustrating the absurdity of the method you support your position.
I have the "option" to never kill anyone in my life. Does that mean we don't need to pay for police?
#109
Shegokigo
Shegokigo
If at that point she makes the choice, then yes, she takes a pay cut to support her 3-9 month absence.
#110
GasBandit
GasBandit
A retroactive pay cut?If at that point she makes the choice, then yes, she takes a pay cut to support her 3-9 month absence.
#111
Shegokigo
Shegokigo
Why should she get docked the pay when she was working just fine?
#112
strawman
strawman
Maternity leave doesn't require that the person be paid, merely that they can't be fired due to reasonable maternity leave. Further, notice is generally given with enough time to provide for workload shifts or temporary workers.
Maternity leave is not a valid reason to pay women less.
But let's suppose it is, that it's paid. If every woman has 2 children during her 40 (2080 weeks) year career and takes the full 8 weeks maternity leave each time, that accounts for 0.77% of her total effort, averaged over her career length.
Certainly not anywhere near the pay disparity studies demonstrate.
There may be other factors to take into account, but maternity leave is not significant.
Maternity leave is not a valid reason to pay women less.
But let's suppose it is, that it's paid. If every woman has 2 children during her 40 (2080 weeks) year career and takes the full 8 weeks maternity leave each time, that accounts for 0.77% of her total effort, averaged over her career length.
Certainly not anywhere near the pay disparity studies demonstrate.
There may be other factors to take into account, but maternity leave is not significant.
#113
GasBandit
Conversely, in this line, I don't think it logical a woman who has a child then comes back and stays on should be subject to the lower salary either. The issue here is quitting.
GasBandit
Because the assertion was that the possibility of having to replace her made a lower salary part of preparing for that eventuality. Not just maternity leave, but quitting to become a stay at home mom, is the issue here. So, if you are hired at $30k/year with the understanding you won't take the "option" to get pregnant, in the event you do and quit for it a year later (necessitating the training of your replacement by other personnel), the only logical outcome of that is to have to remit the difference than if you'd been paid the "probably gonna get pregnant and quit" salary. And then that brings up all kinds of tax problems because you know the government isn't going to give back the taxes. Does the business then just have to eat it? That means the next time they hire, the "imminent babyfactory" wage will be that much lower.Why should she get docked the pay when she was working just fine?
Conversely, in this line, I don't think it logical a woman who has a child then comes back and stays on should be subject to the lower salary either. The issue here is quitting.
#114
Shegokigo
Shegokigo
That's all fine and dandy, but a man can up and quit his job too or a woman for that matter, regardless of getting pregnant so I find your example flawed.
#115
TommiR
As to getting sick, yes, it is handled in pretty much the same way. An employee calling in to say they have 2 weeks of sick leave from a doctor is handled one way, and an employee calling in to say they have 3-10 months of sick leave is handled in another way.[/quote]
TommiR
Irrelevant as to there being a difference between men and women quitting their jobs. Not irrelevant as to how a maternity/paternity leave affects the employer.So you see how irrelevant that is...
As I said, that's the way it is here and I believe in most places. If you can honestly claim that in your country (which is, by the way...?) the employer of a mother is no worse off when a baby is born than the employer of a father, either due to wages, effort, lost (wo)manhours or in any way at all, then I congratulate your society of it's equality thinking on this issue.Well maybe where your from...
But my experience aside, that also happens when your sick etc, and could easily be handled the same way...
As to getting sick, yes, it is handled in pretty much the same way. An employee calling in to say they have 2 weeks of sick leave from a doctor is handled one way, and an employee calling in to say they have 3-10 months of sick leave is handled in another way.[/quote]
I agree that is a significant if not the primary factor of why the wage gap existed in the first place. The discussion in this thread has highlighted a few points on why it might be difficult to reduce that wage gap, and why it still exists.Lower wages aren't about maternity, but historical context...
#116
GasBandit
However, let me skip to the next level of the discussion - even once you have accepted what I say to be the irrefutable logical progression of the line of thought, I'll tell you why it still would never fly - because in practicality, in addition to the tax headache, nobody would agree to give back pay without kicking and screaming and biting and clawing. It just goes against the grain of our cultural mindset. It'd never stand. Congressmen would probably get involved to put a stop to it. So, the whole concept of adjusting pay based upon whether or not the "option" of pregnancy is taken is absolutely doomed. It doesn't seem fair, I know. Much like the insurance premiums going up because you work with fat people doesn't seem fair to the skinny, despite them not only not exercising the "option" to get fat, but actively keeping themselves in shape while the others pack on the tonnage. It's not fair. It's just how it's been found to work. But maybe there should be a pay bump for sterility treatments...?
GasBandit
Every reason a man has to quit a woman also has, plus the demonstrated tendency to quit to be a mom on top of all that (with one exception, selective service... but that's a whooooole 'nuther discussion). Furthermore, 2 posts ago you agreed that a woman who gets pregnant should take a pay cut, so you have already agreed there is an inherent difference.That's all fine and dandy, but a man can up and quit his job too or a woman for that matter, regardless of getting pregnant so I find your example flawed.
However, let me skip to the next level of the discussion - even once you have accepted what I say to be the irrefutable logical progression of the line of thought, I'll tell you why it still would never fly - because in practicality, in addition to the tax headache, nobody would agree to give back pay without kicking and screaming and biting and clawing. It just goes against the grain of our cultural mindset. It'd never stand. Congressmen would probably get involved to put a stop to it. So, the whole concept of adjusting pay based upon whether or not the "option" of pregnancy is taken is absolutely doomed. It doesn't seem fair, I know. Much like the insurance premiums going up because you work with fat people doesn't seem fair to the skinny, despite them not only not exercising the "option" to get fat, but actively keeping themselves in shape while the others pack on the tonnage. It's not fair. It's just how it's been found to work. But maybe there should be a pay bump for sterility treatments...?
#117
@Li3n
Again, does the person not come back? And if she doesn't, how is that any different from quitting the job for any number of other reasons?
@Li3n
Oh no, you misunderstand, that was a complaint about not having any replacement at all for a year or so and just having everyone else left pick up the slack... my country sucks...As I said, that's the way it is here and I believe in most places. If you can honestly claim that in your country (which is, by the way...?) the employer of a mother is no worse off when a baby is born than the employer of a father, either due to wages, effort, lost (wo)manhours or in any way at all, then I congratulate your society of it's equality thinking on this issue.
Point was, there's no reason for a 3rd category there...As to getting sick, yes, it is handled in pretty much the same way. An employee calling in to say they have 2 weeks of sick leave from a doctor is handled one way, and an employee calling in to say they have 3-10 months of sick leave is handled in another way.
Problem is you're using a very complex excuse while ignoring the more simple explanation of why an employer doesn't want to pay more, because it's no in his interest to pay more for the same work...I agree that is a significant if not the primary factor of why the wage gap existed in the first place. The discussion in this thread has highlighted a few points on why it might be difficult to reduce that wage gap, and why it still exists.
A retroactive pay cut?
Again, does the person not come back? And if she doesn't, how is that any different from quitting the job for any number of other reasons?
#118
Shegokigo
Shegokigo
Yeah, all I'm reading is details that can almost completely be applied to long term medical leaves with or without pay. Simply put, if a woman never chooses or cannot choose to have a child, she spent her entire life with a pay cut. That's totally fair in the opinion of those who push it. Again, the neanderthal males who feel threatened by women making as much as them.
Oh and Steinman already pointed out how any details pointing toward maternity leave being and equal ground financially for a full lifetime of paycut is absurd.
Oh and Steinman already pointed out how any details pointing toward maternity leave being and equal ground financially for a full lifetime of paycut is absurd.
#119
GasBandit
But I realize now I phrased my final point to Shegokigo badly -
I still think that unequal pay is not justified, and that women should get equal pay, and that yes, a business will just have to eat the training costs if and when a new mom quits. Conditional salaries based upon not "taking the option" to get pregnant will never work, it would be less of a struggle to just make companies take the hit yet again. However, once can easily foresee the future changes in hiring practices that this would precipitate... IE, male applicants getting preference over female to try to mitigate the matriarchal quitting tendency.
And unlike salaries, it will be much harder to show the metrics to prove it is happening.
GasBandit
So far, no, none of them have. And it is a demonstrable tendency. Our latest TD is past childbearing age, so here's hoping no more training for me to do for a while. Of course, every old lady health issue that comes up means I have to cover while she's out, but that's still preferable to having to retrain a new person from scratch every year or two, because it really does take 8 to 12 months to learn to do that job well enough to be unsupervised in it.Again, does the person not come back? And if she doesn't, how is that any different from quitting the job for any number of other reasons?
But I realize now I phrased my final point to Shegokigo badly -
I still think that unequal pay is not justified, and that women should get equal pay, and that yes, a business will just have to eat the training costs if and when a new mom quits. Conditional salaries based upon not "taking the option" to get pregnant will never work, it would be less of a struggle to just make companies take the hit yet again. However, once can easily foresee the future changes in hiring practices that this would precipitate... IE, male applicants getting preference over female to try to mitigate the matriarchal quitting tendency.
And unlike salaries, it will be much harder to show the metrics to prove it is happening.
#120
TommiR
Though, reading stienman, it seems things are different in the US than they are here. If a US woman spends merely 8 weeks on leave due to having a baby, it is quite different from what it is here where women generally spend 8-10 months, and are a lot more likely to take the various optional leaves that accrue until the child is 10 years old. Whereas most men spend about 2-3 weeks on childbirth-related leaves.
Hence, in a gross generalisation, women seem to quit their jobs more often then men.
TommiR
I think the point I'm trying to make is a fairly simple one. A male worker statistically will provide an employer with more man-hours than a female due to parental issues, and this imbalance will be pronounced in the ~10 years after graduation when women generally have babies. Say ages 25-35.Point was, there's no reason for a 3rd category there...
Problem is you're using a very complex excuse while ignoring the more simple explanation of why an employer doesn't want to pay more, because it's no in his interest to pay more for the same work...
Though, reading stienman, it seems things are different in the US than they are here. If a US woman spends merely 8 weeks on leave due to having a baby, it is quite different from what it is here where women generally spend 8-10 months, and are a lot more likely to take the various optional leaves that accrue until the child is 10 years old. Whereas most men spend about 2-3 weeks on childbirth-related leaves.
Women quit after pregnancy more often then men quit after their wife has given birth. Women and men otherwise quit about as often, in a large-numbers game.Again, does the person not come back? And if she doesn't, how is that any different from quitting the job for any number of other reasons?
Hence, in a gross generalisation, women seem to quit their jobs more often then men.
I agree that a difference in pay between men and women should not exist, on moral grounds. But I'm trying to figure out how the right for a woman to change her mind can be integrated in a practical way into general business philosophy about cost-efficiency and risk management. So far, my results haven't been very promising.Yeah, all I'm reading is details that can almost completely be applied to long term medical leaves with or without pay. Simply put, if a woman never chooses or cannot choose to have a child, she spent her entire life with a pay cut. That's totally fair in the opinion of those who push it. Again, the neanderthal males who feel threatened by women making as much as them.
#121
PatrThom
--Patrick
PatrThom
Most successful pregnancies tend to have a built-in, obvious notification mechanism to coworkers that a birth is going to be occurring sometime within the next 6-7 months. One would think management would pick up on the signs....notice is generally given with enough time to provide for workload shifts or temporary workers.
I was going to mention this but it appears you have ninja'd me, sir....maybe there should be a pay bump for sterility treatments...?
--Patrick
#122
strawman
strawman
I just don't see what mechanism could be instituted that would work.
I got a great job out of college with a salary that was 20% higher than other graduates because I demonstrated I had a greater value than the other graduates (significant experience, passion for the field, demonstrated ability, etc).
Eventually the 600+ employee company was sold to another 600+ company that had rigorous salary/pay tables based solely on experience since graduation, and all the employees were ultimately forced into the pay grade scale. I ended up being paid less than employees who were obviously less proficient but had more time under their belt since their graduation. (it was slightly more complex than this, but the point and result is the same)
But I can't complain because there's no easy way to quantify my value in an objective way that's fair to everyone.
Similarly, there's not going to be an easy way to determine if a given employee's value - male or female - is actually on par with another employee's value except in a rather subjective way. This is especially true outside my industry. At least in engineering you can objectively evaluate how cheap a design is, how quickly an engineer completes the design, and how much maintenance the design needs in the long run.
There are some things in each industry that can be evaluated, but then there are the once in a blue moon problems that would only be well solved by someone that has significant knowledge and experience that can't be easily measured by monthly output reports.
Further, once you tie pay to a measurement system employees optimize for that system, which is one of many reasons why so many companies implement a rather subjective evaluation mechanism. IBM started tracking how many lines of code programmers wrote each day, and suddenly it became a race to write the lengthiest, most bloated code one could manage. Another company implemented a bonus for each bug fixed. Suddenly the number of bugs created exploded - and the fixes followed right behind.
So on the one hand you can average all the employees in a given position and force the outliers - both high and low - into the same pay scale to make sure there's no gender gap, or you can implement a complex system of objective measures with unintended consequences to grade each employee.
Neither option works, and there are a million loopholes.
Take the first option - all you need to do is create a new job title with slightly different requirements for each employee. Analyst 1, 2, and 3. Junior Analyst 1, 2, and 3. Senior Analyst 1, 2, and 3.
It's going to be impossible for any court to properly evaluate whether an employee is truly as valuable as any other employee, nevermind the second loophole that the company may have only opened up one junior position, and hired the senior analyst into the junior position.
I don't see any measures that people have so far proposed working at all, nevermind meeting their intended purpose. It is more likely that people will work around it, or optimize for it, making the situation worse.
I got a great job out of college with a salary that was 20% higher than other graduates because I demonstrated I had a greater value than the other graduates (significant experience, passion for the field, demonstrated ability, etc).
Eventually the 600+ employee company was sold to another 600+ company that had rigorous salary/pay tables based solely on experience since graduation, and all the employees were ultimately forced into the pay grade scale. I ended up being paid less than employees who were obviously less proficient but had more time under their belt since their graduation. (it was slightly more complex than this, but the point and result is the same)
But I can't complain because there's no easy way to quantify my value in an objective way that's fair to everyone.
Similarly, there's not going to be an easy way to determine if a given employee's value - male or female - is actually on par with another employee's value except in a rather subjective way. This is especially true outside my industry. At least in engineering you can objectively evaluate how cheap a design is, how quickly an engineer completes the design, and how much maintenance the design needs in the long run.
There are some things in each industry that can be evaluated, but then there are the once in a blue moon problems that would only be well solved by someone that has significant knowledge and experience that can't be easily measured by monthly output reports.
Further, once you tie pay to a measurement system employees optimize for that system, which is one of many reasons why so many companies implement a rather subjective evaluation mechanism. IBM started tracking how many lines of code programmers wrote each day, and suddenly it became a race to write the lengthiest, most bloated code one could manage. Another company implemented a bonus for each bug fixed. Suddenly the number of bugs created exploded - and the fixes followed right behind.
So on the one hand you can average all the employees in a given position and force the outliers - both high and low - into the same pay scale to make sure there's no gender gap, or you can implement a complex system of objective measures with unintended consequences to grade each employee.
Neither option works, and there are a million loopholes.
Take the first option - all you need to do is create a new job title with slightly different requirements for each employee. Analyst 1, 2, and 3. Junior Analyst 1, 2, and 3. Senior Analyst 1, 2, and 3.
It's going to be impossible for any court to properly evaluate whether an employee is truly as valuable as any other employee, nevermind the second loophole that the company may have only opened up one junior position, and hired the senior analyst into the junior position.
I don't see any measures that people have so far proposed working at all, nevermind meeting their intended purpose. It is more likely that people will work around it, or optimize for it, making the situation worse.
#123
PatrThom
PatrThom
Pretty astute observation...for an engineer.
Why, if what you say is true (about people taking advantage of their systems), it should have been trivially easy to avoid the real estate/S&L crisis, or put a stop to excessive asset churning, or avoid the recent collapse of Wall Street. All it would've taken would've been for people to be less willing to game their respective systems. But obviously what you say can't be true, or else people wouldn't be using the patent system or copyright laws to make money instead of, y'know, doing something valuable for the betterment of society.
The only alternative is that people everywhere not only are dicks, they enjoy being dicks, and of course no decent human being would behave that way towards his fellow (wo)man.
--Patrick
Why, if what you say is true (about people taking advantage of their systems), it should have been trivially easy to avoid the real estate/S&L crisis, or put a stop to excessive asset churning, or avoid the recent collapse of Wall Street. All it would've taken would've been for people to be less willing to game their respective systems. But obviously what you say can't be true, or else people wouldn't be using the patent system or copyright laws to make money instead of, y'know, doing something valuable for the betterment of society.
The only alternative is that people everywhere not only are dicks, they enjoy being dicks, and of course no decent human being would behave that way towards his fellow (wo)man.
--Patrick
#124
strawman
strawman
What!?! People taking advantage of others?
Mind==blown.
Mind==blown.
#125
Bubble181
Bubble181
Just dropping in my €0.02....There's no inherent reason why women should get paid less, starting out (unless it's a job where one or the other is objectively better - and even so, there's probably better metrics than gender out there to quantify the difference).
However, maternity leave (which can easily be over 6 months per baby - I personally *know* someone who's been home on maternity leave/paid vacation/parenting leave/pregnancy leave/etc for going on 8 years...no, our system isn't broken! Why would you think that?!) can, and should, play a role in salary later on; as it's lost experience and lost contributions to other systems.
That is, if a man works for 42 years, and a woman does the exact same job for 42 years, by my account, they should be paid the exact same and should have the same pension. If the man works for 42 years, and the woman works for 40 years and stays at home for 2 years to rear hatchlings, I think it's fair that the woman makes a bit less and has a slightly smaller pension. In Belgium, currently, they're supposed to make the same and earn the same. With the crisis and everything, it's now up for debate again, but it seemsl ike that'll stay the same....Which I disagree with. Having kids is pretty essential to society, sure, but it's still your own choice, with plenty of kickbacks (in Belgium), and not something your employer should be punished for.
However, maternity leave (which can easily be over 6 months per baby - I personally *know* someone who's been home on maternity leave/paid vacation/parenting leave/pregnancy leave/etc for going on 8 years...no, our system isn't broken! Why would you think that?!) can, and should, play a role in salary later on; as it's lost experience and lost contributions to other systems.
That is, if a man works for 42 years, and a woman does the exact same job for 42 years, by my account, they should be paid the exact same and should have the same pension. If the man works for 42 years, and the woman works for 40 years and stays at home for 2 years to rear hatchlings, I think it's fair that the woman makes a bit less and has a slightly smaller pension. In Belgium, currently, they're supposed to make the same and earn the same. With the crisis and everything, it's now up for debate again, but it seemsl ike that'll stay the same....Which I disagree with. Having kids is pretty essential to society, sure, but it's still your own choice, with plenty of kickbacks (in Belgium), and not something your employer should be punished for.
#126
Necronic
Necronic
Here's my take: Life isn't fair. It's not. It sucks.
With that in mind, there's two ways to deal with the unfair position nature has left women with regards to a tendency towards child birth:
1) Be severely unfair to the woman. Use cold actuarial methods to determine that a woman is more of a risk of leaving your company than a man is, all other things being equal. Because of this risk the unfairness of nature will be paid in full by them in being passed over by promotions etc..
2) Be a little unfair to everyone. Ignore the actuarial data and treat them equally implicitly. Yes, you are ignoring a mathematical risk, but you spread the consequences to everyone. Everyone suffers a little when a woman unexpectedly leaves her job. Now, seeing as you have at least a couple months notice (see Knocked Up, you can't hide it that long), you should be able to mitigate the damage so it's pretty small.
I choose option 2.
Also, there's another problem with option 1. The cold actuarial nature of it also implies mistreating a lot of other "conditions", like age, obesity, smoking, or marriage status (single people are more likely to quit/move). All of these things play into a person's loyalty to a company and/or their career length. Yet we don't see an argument of "Hey don't hire fat people because they are more likely to die younger and have more sick days" or "hey young single people are a flight risk only hire 30 year old married folk" or "Hey don't hire jews because they have more congenital health deffects". That shit isn't even considered even if the math does support it because it's culturally understood to be so fucking wrong.
With that in mind, there's two ways to deal with the unfair position nature has left women with regards to a tendency towards child birth:
1) Be severely unfair to the woman. Use cold actuarial methods to determine that a woman is more of a risk of leaving your company than a man is, all other things being equal. Because of this risk the unfairness of nature will be paid in full by them in being passed over by promotions etc..
2) Be a little unfair to everyone. Ignore the actuarial data and treat them equally implicitly. Yes, you are ignoring a mathematical risk, but you spread the consequences to everyone. Everyone suffers a little when a woman unexpectedly leaves her job. Now, seeing as you have at least a couple months notice (see Knocked Up, you can't hide it that long), you should be able to mitigate the damage so it's pretty small.
I choose option 2.
Also, there's another problem with option 1. The cold actuarial nature of it also implies mistreating a lot of other "conditions", like age, obesity, smoking, or marriage status (single people are more likely to quit/move). All of these things play into a person's loyalty to a company and/or their career length. Yet we don't see an argument of "Hey don't hire fat people because they are more likely to die younger and have more sick days" or "hey young single people are a flight risk only hire 30 year old married folk" or "Hey don't hire jews because they have more congenital health deffects". That shit isn't even considered even if the math does support it because it's culturally understood to be so fucking wrong.
#127
Bubble181
)
Bubble181
I'm not sure how the world works over there, must be a really cool place to live. Any discrimination that's not explicitly illegal but is statistically relevant is being used over here in insurance. Car insurance goes up if you live in the city, it goes up if you move, it's higher if you're younger, it's higher for men,.... A lot of health insurance doesn't cover every possible angle, but yes, those things are measured and yes, some of them will mean forking over more money or changing your ways (if possible and practical. I know it's possible but I can't imagine anyone taking the Amorous Eyes route just to save on car insuranceThat shit isn't even considered even if the math does support it because it's culturally understood to be so fucking wrong.
)
#128
PatrThom
--Patrick
PatrThom
There's got to be a Guyco joke in there, somewhere.I can't imagine anyone taking the Amorous Eyes route just to save on car insurance
--Patrick
#129
TommiR
But I perceive a problem, both practical and theoretical, when thinking based on such concepts as fairness and morality are attempted to port over to the business world as things are currently set up. I believe it was Milton Friedman who said that the only responsibility a company has is to make money for the shareholders, within the limits set by law. I fully agree with this, and believe that any concerns external to making a profit need to come from the outside, from legislators and such authorities. Several people in this thread have highlighted the difficulties associated with the legislative approach.
This of course doesn't mean that women are doomed. In some industries the wage gap is very narrow or even non-existent. What I think is needed to spread that gender equality further is to provide a sound business reason for companies to do so, that real equal opportunity gives them some competitive edge. If that holds true, then good old Invisible Hand will, in time, take care of the problem. If it does not hold true and changing things will simply increase costs without providing companies with equal value, then I don't know what can be done.
And while we're on the topic of car insurance, if any of you are thinking about getting a full-coverage policy for a used car, you might want to think twice. If you were a young university student and paying higher premiums in return for protecting the most valuable thing you own seemed like a good idea, I'd especially recommend you think twice. Because I can tell you those f*ckers at the insurance company have no souls.
TommiR
I do like this thinking when it is applied to society or intra-group mechanics in general. It's the reason why I for instance give to charity and pay a little higher taxes to provide basic welfare, if the alternative is a rocketing crime rate or the least well-off section of society dying on the streets from starvation or exposure.With that in mind, there's two ways to deal with the unfair position nature has left women with regards to a tendency towards child birth:
1) Be severely unfair to the woman. Use cold actuarial methods to determine that a woman is more of a risk of leaving your company than a man is, all other things being equal. Because of this risk the unfairness of nature will be paid in full by them in being passed over by promotions etc..
2) Be a little unfair to everyone. Ignore the actuarial data and treat them equally implicitly. Yes, you are ignoring a mathematical risk, but you spread the consequences to everyone. Everyone suffers a little when a woman unexpectedly leaves her job. Now, seeing as you have at least a couple months notice (see Knocked Up, you can't hide it that long), you should be able to mitigate the damage so it's pretty small.
I choose option 2.
But I perceive a problem, both practical and theoretical, when thinking based on such concepts as fairness and morality are attempted to port over to the business world as things are currently set up. I believe it was Milton Friedman who said that the only responsibility a company has is to make money for the shareholders, within the limits set by law. I fully agree with this, and believe that any concerns external to making a profit need to come from the outside, from legislators and such authorities. Several people in this thread have highlighted the difficulties associated with the legislative approach.
This of course doesn't mean that women are doomed. In some industries the wage gap is very narrow or even non-existent. What I think is needed to spread that gender equality further is to provide a sound business reason for companies to do so, that real equal opportunity gives them some competitive edge. If that holds true, then good old Invisible Hand will, in time, take care of the problem. If it does not hold true and changing things will simply increase costs without providing companies with equal value, then I don't know what can be done.
That's a good example.I'm not sure how the world works over there, must be a really cool place to live. Any discrimination that's not explicitly illegal but is statistically relevant is being used over here in insurance. Car insurance goes up if you live in the city, it goes up if you move, it's higher if you're younger, it's higher for men,.... A lot of health insurance doesn't cover every possible angle, but yes, those things are measured and yes, some of them will mean forking over more money or changing your ways (if possible and practical. I know it's possible but I can't imagine anyone taking the Amorous Eyes route just to save on car insurance
And while we're on the topic of car insurance, if any of you are thinking about getting a full-coverage policy for a used car, you might want to think twice. If you were a young university student and paying higher premiums in return for protecting the most valuable thing you own seemed like a good idea, I'd especially recommend you think twice. Because I can tell you those f*ckers at the insurance company have no souls.
#130
Necronic
The Car Insurance example is interesting, but maybe it's fundamentally different because you are talking about purchasing a service, not talking about employment. The logic is exactly the same, but there's something different.
Also, I want to point out/repeat what others have said that there are a handful of industries/positions where no one cares the slightest what sex you are. In very technical work (like PhD level science) the skills of the individual are rare enough that they couldn't be looked at in an actuarial method if they wanted to. The sample sizes are too small, and the risk you take on is quite likely negligible amongst all the noise.
Necronic
I agree with this wholeheartedly. Relying on companies to do something "out of the goodness of their hearts" is absurd and unrealistic. It's not that companies are evil, it's that they have very different motivations from us and their rationale is affected by as much. Hence I do agree that certain legislation should exist to bridge that gap.But I perceive a problem, both practical and theoretical, when thinking based on such concepts as fairness and morality are attempted to port over to the business world as things are currently set up. I believe it was Milton Friedman who said that the only responsibility a company has is to make money for the shareholders, within the limits set by law. I fully agree with this, and believe that any concerns external to making a profit need to come from the outside, from legislators and such authorities. Several people in this thread have highlighted the difficulties associated with the legislative approach.
The Car Insurance example is interesting, but maybe it's fundamentally different because you are talking about purchasing a service, not talking about employment. The logic is exactly the same, but there's something different.
Also, I want to point out/repeat what others have said that there are a handful of industries/positions where no one cares the slightest what sex you are. In very technical work (like PhD level science) the skills of the individual are rare enough that they couldn't be looked at in an actuarial method if they wanted to. The sample sizes are too small, and the risk you take on is quite likely negligible amongst all the noise.
#131
GasBandit
GasBandit
Perhaps not out loud, but you know that's already an unspoken factor in hiring. And fat people and smokers are the last two demographics we're allowed to hate on and discriminate against and still be politically correct. Heck, I used to even work for a company that had a policy to not employ people who smoke even if they don't smoke during work hours. As in, if you smoke at home, you're fired/not hired.Yet we don't see an argument of "Hey don't hire fat people because they are more likely to die younger and have more sick days"
I've actually heard THAT said out loud where I work NOW.or "hey young single people are a flight risk only hire 30 year old married folk"
Their skill with money counterbalances that.or "Hey don't hire jews because they have more congenital health deffects".
#132
Necronic
Necronic
That smoking thing is actually a really big deal to me, and is my only point of contention with the American Lung Association, who are vocally opposed to laws that stop companies from firing/not hiring people who smoke. I had a friend who worked there (who secretly smoked) who worked next to a fat woman who drank sodas all day.
That's complete rubbish. There is no difference from refusing to hire a smoker than refusing to hire a fat person. They are both health risks and drive up health premiums (fat people moreso than smokers it turns out). They are both potentially less productive. They both may be unpleasant to one of your senses or be uncomfortable to sit next to in tight quarters (like a meeting).
It's just more PC to say that you don't want to be near smokers than you don't want to be near overweight people. One is considered normal, the other sounds like something a serial killer would say.
That's complete rubbish. There is no difference from refusing to hire a smoker than refusing to hire a fat person. They are both health risks and drive up health premiums (fat people moreso than smokers it turns out). They are both potentially less productive. They both may be unpleasant to one of your senses or be uncomfortable to sit next to in tight quarters (like a meeting).
It's just more PC to say that you don't want to be near smokers than you don't want to be near overweight people. One is considered normal, the other sounds like something a serial killer would say.
#133
strawman
strawman
Maybe, but people are more scared of cancer than heart disease, even though heart disease has a higher mortality rate.
#134
blotsfan
blotsfan
I'd say the difference is that you need to eat, while you can live without smoking.
#135
Necronic
Necronic
That's facile. You may need to eat but nothing says you have to eat so much.
They are both choices. They both lead to increased health risks and costs. They are both issues of addiction.
They are both choices. They both lead to increased health risks and costs. They are both issues of addiction.
#136
TommiR
TommiR
As you said, the logic is the same, but I might go quite far in saying the two cases are very much the same. For an employer, hiring is an investment where they purchase the skills and time of the employee, in return for a salary. The company is essentially buying a service, so I'd say they are subject to the same considerations. I'm not sure I see a great difference in acquiring labor when compared to acquiring other factors of production.The Car Insurance example is interesting, but maybe it's fundamentally different because you are talking about purchasing a service, not talking about employment. The logic is exactly the same, but there's something different.
Agreed. Possession of rare skills that are in demand will see many of the things discussed here substantially decrease in relevance.Also, I want to point out/repeat what others have said that there are a handful of industries/positions where no one cares the slightest what sex you are. In very technical work (like PhD level science) the skills of the individual are rare enough that they couldn't be looked at in an actuarial method if they wanted to. The sample sizes are too small, and the risk you take on is quite likely negligible amongst all the noise.
#137
AshburnerX
AshburnerX
Except you don't get heart disease by being near a fat person while they eat. However, you COULD get develop health problems if you spend significant time around a smoker while they smoke. It certainly made my allergies worse growing up with someone who smoked a pack a day.That's facile. You may need to eat but nothing says you have to eat so much.
They are both choices. They both lead to increased health risks and costs. They are both issues of addiction.
#138
Necronic
You do that then there's really little to no difference other than culture.
Necronic
I'll agree with that, and for that reason I have no problems with banning smoking in public, or banning smoking at your workplace.Except you don't get heart disease by being near a fat person while they eat. However, you COULD get develop health problems if you spend significant time around a smoker while they smoke. It certainly made my allergies worse growing up with someone who smoked a pack a day.
You do that then there's really little to no difference other than culture.
#139
@Li3n
@Li3n
And i'm sure i can find statistics like that between different ethnic groups, with one working less man hours, but i doubt anyone would make the same argument...I think the point I'm trying to make is a fairly simple one. A male worker statistically will provide an employer with more man-hours than a female due to parental issues, and this imbalance will be pronounced in the ~10 years after graduation when women generally have babies. Say ages 25-35.
No they don't... unless you're some sort of saint you're as motivated by making the most money with the lest effort as any company, even if it's on a smaller scale.It's not that companies are evil, it's that they have very different motivations from us and their rationale is affected by as much.
If fat people where blowing grease at me with every breath i'm pretty sure no one would mind when i say i dont want to be near them...It's just more PC to say that you don't want to be near smokers than you don't want to be near overweight people. One is considered normal, the other sounds like something a serial killer would say.
#140
TommiR
TommiR
Most people would agree that, other things being equal, a worker who puts in more man hours is more valuable to the company, and more likely to get a raise or promotion or something.And i'm sure i can find statistics like that between different ethnic groups, with one working less man hours, but i doubt anyone would make the same argument...
#141
Necronic
Necronic
Being near a smoker that is smoking is unpleasant in its own way. My point wasn't about second hand smoke (like I said, ban public smoking that's fine.) I'm talking about sitting next to a smoker that has that smell of stale smoke on them. I would say that, one a plane, sitting next to a smoker would be just as unpleasant as sitting next to an obese person.If fat people where blowing grease at me with every breath i'm pretty sure no one would mind when i say i dont want to be near them...
#142
PatrThom
--Patrick
PatrThom
I would posit that this is because there are a number of parts of you which can get cancer that you can survive without (in whole or in part), but if you remove any notable portion of a person's heart, they're pretty much done for.Maybe, but people are more scared of cancer than heart disease, even though heart disease has a higher mortality rate.
--Patrick
#143
Bubble181
It depends on what cancer, of course, but it's silly that I know people who go to great lengths to block the sun because they're so afraid of getting melanoma; while happily scarfing down 3x the amounts of fats a person needs a day, in one meal.
Bubble181
On the other hand, most heart diseases can be helped with a transplant,, which isn't a solution for many cancers.I would posit that this is because there are a number of parts of you which can get cancer that you can survive without (in whole or in part), but if you remove any notable portion of a person's heart, they're pretty much done for.
--Patrick
It depends on what cancer, of course, but it's silly that I know people who go to great lengths to block the sun because they're so afraid of getting melanoma; while happily scarfing down 3x the amounts of fats a person needs a day, in one meal.
#144
AshburnerX
AshburnerX
Yeah, except viable hearts are in short supply. Most people don't sign-up for organ donation.
#145
Bubble181
Screw Jehova's Witnesses! (no disrespect to any JW on this board )
Bubble181
Yet another reason to love laws. Everybody's an organ donor here....Unless you go through all the red tape to specify you DONT want to. Much more efficientYeah, except viable hearts are in short supply. Most people don't sign-up for organ donation.
Screw Jehova's Witnesses! (no disrespect to any JW on this board )
#146
Eriol
Eriol
I always thought that it was because Heart Disease is what kills older folks the most, whereas cancer is more likely in younger (still 40+ mainly, but not 70+). Thus heart disease (and a few others) are not perceived as "early deaths" but more like "dying of old age" for the most part. Yes there's exceptions both ways (young heart disease, really old cancer), but those are exceptions, and not contributing to public perception. Add to that the fact that in the WHO reports, you don't see "old age" as the leading cause of death anywhere, though by most measures, it is. For example, my grandfather died of congestive heart failure. He was 105. Did heart disease kill him? That's what it probably would officially be counted as, but he died of old age. How is that counted?
#147
Bubble181
Bubble181
"Old age" isn't an official cause of death; ever. Don't ask me why... All four of my grandparents died of cancer (2x lung, 2x lower intestine). One died at age 56; the other three well over 80...I'd say there's a difference, but officially, there isn't.I always thought that it was because Heart Disease is what kills older folks the most, whereas cancer is more likely in younger (still 40+ mainly, but not 70+). Thus heart disease (and a few others) are not perceived as "early deaths" but more like "dying of old age" for the most part. Yes there's exceptions both ways (young heart disease, really old cancer), but those are exceptions, and not contributing to public perception. Add to that the fact that in the WHO reports, you don't see "old age" as the leading cause of death anywhere, though by most measures, it is. For example, my grandfather died of congestive heart failure. He was 105. Did heart disease kill him? That's what it probably would officially be counted as, but he died of old age. How is that counted?
#148
strawman
strawman
Technically, in the US, you don't die of cancer either. You die of organ failure (usually kidney, liver, heart, or lung).
#149
Bubble181
Bubble181
I know, that I was taught by too many TV shows :-PTechnically, in the US, you don't die of cancer either. You die of organ failure (usually kidney, liver, heart, or lung).
#150
@Li3n
@Li3n
Do your fat persons not wash or something?!Being near a smoker that is smoking is unpleasant in its own way. My point wasn't about second hand smoke (like I said, ban public smoking that's fine.) I'm talking about sitting next to a smoker that has that smell of stale smoke on them. I would say that, one a plane, sitting next to a smoker would be just as unpleasant as sitting next to an obese person.
#151
@Li3n
As Shego said, it's not about women that actually get pregnant, but about women getting penalised because they can get pregnant... they don't give out promotions because you could put in more man hours do they.. (more general argument against your example)
@Li3n
Individually yes, but you don't see anyone arguing that because my brother works a lot i should get more pay from the get go because i have the genes that make him capable of that etc... (about my post that you quoted)Most people would agree that, other things being equal, a worker who puts in more man hours is more valuable to the company, and more likely to get a raise or promotion or something.
As Shego said, it's not about women that actually get pregnant, but about women getting penalised because they can get pregnant... they don't give out promotions because you could put in more man hours do they.. (more general argument against your example)
#152
Necronic
Necronic
No but they take up extra space, and often huff and wheeze. When I am sitting in a confined space, like at a big meeting or on an airplane or whatever, it can be unpleasant. The smell of a smoker that has recently smoked is definitely worse though.Do your fat persons not wash or something?!
#153
@Li3n
@Li3n
So we're talking more in the realm of the really obese here...No but they take up extra space, and often huff and wheeze.
#154
Hailey Knight
Hailey Knight
Some cultures are paranoid that EMTs, upon seeing you're a donor, will let you die so your organs will go to other people. It was prevalent in the Mexican community I stayed with for a couple months in California.Yeah, except viable hearts are in short supply. Most people don't sign-up for organ donation.
#155
AshburnerX
AshburnerX
If I was in Mexico, I would be paranoid of that too. But in the US? Not really.Some cultures are paranoid that EMTs, upon seeing you're a donor, will let you die so your organs will go to other people. It was prevalent in the Mexican community I stayed with for a couple months in California.
#157
Bubble181
Bubble181
I think that's just stupid. She may be able to work throughout and only take a few weeks maternity leave - but not all women can or want to. Fine by me if she wants to do it, but you run the risk of even less compassion/understanding for those who do want to take a few months. Also, not everyone either has a stay-at-home husband or the money to hire a nanny. (Mind that I'm perfectly fine with the husband staying at home for the kids if the wife's the one with the better career or whatever - just saying it's not an option for everyone).
But hey, good for her.
But hey, good for her.
#158
@Li3n
@Li3n
People are prone to overreacting (having a black president doesn't mean racism is over either), but it is a step forward...I think that's just stupid. She may be able to work throughout and only take a few weeks maternity leave - but not all women can or want to. Fine by me if she wants to do it, but you run the risk of even less compassion/understanding for those who do want to take a few months. Also, not everyone either has a stay-at-home husband or the money to hire a nanny. (Mind that I'm perfectly fine with the husband staying at home for the kids if the wife's the one with the better career or whatever - just saying it's not an option for everyone).
But hey, good for her.
#159
Bubble181
Bubble181
True enough, and it is a good message to get out there. Some people need it bludgeoned in that women are, in fact, capable of anything men can do and quite some things we can't.People are prone to overreacting (having a black president doesn't mean racism is over either), but it is a step forward...
#161
GasBandit
GasBandit
Except parallel park.True enough, and it is a good message to get out there. Some people need it bludgeoned in that women are, in fact, capable of anything men can do and quite some things we can't.
#162
@Li3n
@Li3n
Sure you can parallel park little buddy... those dents where there from before.Except parallel park.