Yep, communism. Reeducation people on the biological level. Been there, done that. Doesn’t work. But not worry, the low fertility of feminists an other Leftoids won’t allow them to do damage for much longer.
Another think worth thinking about is why self-employed women make less than self-employed men. Are they punishing themselves for being women like white people punish themselves for being white? :-)(Wow, white people punish themselves for being white? What does that look like? It seems to me, George, that unlike most people, white, black, or whatever, who are primarily just racist on a subconscious level, you keep yours right out there for you and the whole world to see. I guess there is a kind of integrity in that.) My guess is that self employed women (as a whole) probably make less because most of them are taking on more than an equitable share of home and child care than men do. Again, is this a choice thrust on them by their children's father being unwilling to do his fair share of home and childcare? But, anyway, equal pay for equal work is about women who do the same amount of work in the workplace, who have the same qualifications, who have the same amount of tenure on the job, but who get less compensation.
But, anyway, equal pay for equal work is about women who do the same amount of work in the workplace, who have the same qualifications, who have the same amount of tenure on the job, but who get less compensation.Doesn't happen.
Yep, communism. Reeducation people on the biological level. Been there, done that. Doesn't work. But not worry, the low fertility of feminists an other Leftoids won't allow them to do damage for much longer.Now you just seem weird. What does "Reeducation people on the biological level" even mean? What damage are the "Leftoids" you refer to doing? Where is the communism, nowadays, that they have wrought? Are you suffering from PTSD from previously living in a totalitarian society? If, as you insinuate that natural selection will weed out persons who have a different perspective than you, how did natural selection result in those people existing in the first place? And why wouldn't natural selection, then, result in those people (with opposing perspectives from yours) popping up again in future generations? (The answer of course, which you have trouble processing, is that a significant amount of human behavior is not hardwired from birth.)
But, anyway, equal pay for equal work is about women who do the same amount of work in the workplace, who have the same qualifications, who have the same amount of tenure on the job, but who get less compensation.Doesn't happen. Tell Lilly Ledbetter that.
GOP- The party that time forgot. We've got the same nonsense going on here, one of the first things the conservative government did was cut funding to women's lobby groups and declared there was no such thing as wage disparity here any more. http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/tories-to-cut-off-funding-for-women-s-lobby-groups-1.594392They'd like nothing better. Giving women the vote just made them too uppity! You can se it everywhere. LoisThe federal Conservative government says it will no longer fund women's groups that do advocacy, lobbying or general research. The drastic change to the mandate and operation of Status of Women Canada also drops the word "equality" when listing the agency's goals. Previous objectives such as helping women's organizations participate in the public policy process and increasing the public's understanding of women's equality issues have been eliminated from government literature.I'm guessing that if they could, they'd also take the right to vote away from women also.
Honestly, I am more concerned with the exploitation of low paid workers, than I am with the exploitation of women workers. (Mainly because I believe it would be good for the overall economy for low paid workers to be paid more.) But in Texas, and probably other places, women are, also, over-represented in the class of folks who are exploited by getting minimum wage or less. In Texas, there are twice as many female vs. male hourly workers who make minimum wage or less.
Why should we get paid the same? In our studio the younger girls make as much as I used to when I was their age. Women my age, however, who have young children, have a very difficult time to stay late or work on the weekends. Why should my boss pay them as much as she pays me since they work less? And the reason why I can work more is because my wife works less (and makes less money than I do) and takes care of our children. Anything else, and you get communism.The reason they have a hard time working late and on weekens is that they always get stuck taking care of kids. Young fathers have the same obligations but they usually manage to sidestep them in favor of working. Besides that, surely not every young woman in your company has young kids to take care of. Are they also getting paid more than the young mothers? Incidentally, many men also take time off for family activities. Base pay for the same job should be the same for men and women, no matter what their circumstances. Statistics show that even single women who are invested in their jobs get paid less than men. There was an old saying that is as true to day as it was in the past. Equal opportunity doesn't mean women executives being paid as much as male executives. It's when a female schlemiel gets paid as much as a male schlemiel. So far the male schlemiels get more just for being male. Lois
I had to look up “schlemiel”. Is that Yiddish?
Honestly, I am more concerned with the exploitation of low paid workers, than I am with the exploitation of women workers. (Mainly because I believe it would be good for the overall economy for low paid workers to be paid more.) But in Texas, and probably other places, women are, also, over-represented in the class of folks who are exploited by getting minimum wage or less. In Texas, there are twice as many female vs. male hourly workers who make minimum wage or less.That is probably an effect of male entry level workers being paid more than the minimum wage for the same jobs women get minimum wage for. If someone is paid even 25 cents an hour over minimum wage, he is no longer a minimum wage worker. He is also more likely to get a heftier raise than his female counterpart--taking him out of the minimum wage category if he was in it to begin with. Sex based wage inequality is insidious. It starts at entry level and multiplies for years. Most women never catch up. Lois
It is Yiddish. I didn’t have the benefit of that old saying, in my culture. I had to figure out all this stuff on my own.
I had to look up "schlemiel". Is that Yiddish?Yes. I'm not Jewish but I grew up and lived in or near Jewish neighborhoods most of my life. The saying came out of New York City. Sometimes nothing else has the juiciness of a Yiddish word. Lois
I’d just as soon not get involved to any extent in this discussion but, quoting George:
In our studio the younger girls make as much as I used to when I was their age.Not really applicable, George unless you factor in the inflation increases ever since you were young. For example, when I hired into Douglas Aircraft in 1952 as a night time technician while I was at UCLA during the day, I started at $1.43 an hour. Using that reasoning, women technicians today are extremely well paid if they are making $7.00 an hour. :lol:
Occam
I'd just as soon not get involved to any extent in this discussion but, quoting George:Yeah, I thought of that, but there were so many trash talking points that I didn't get to all of them.In our studio the younger girls make as much as I used to when I was their age.Not really applicable, George unless you factor in the inflation increases ever since you were young. For example, when I hired into Douglas Aircraft in 1952 as a night time technician while I was at UCLA during the day, I started at $1.43 an hour. Using that reasoning, women technicians today are extremely well paid if they are making $7.00 an hour. :lol: Occam
Another think worth thinking about is why self-employed women make less than self-employed men. Are they punishing themselves for being women like white people punish themselves for being white? :-)Again you need to back up your comments with data which you have repeatedly failed to do. Assuming this is even true, the problem is not so simple as you would like to have everyone believe. The issue of women being paid less is most likely multifactorial. Yes, on average women may tend to work fewer hours and take more leave than men do, but you can't apply such generalizations to individuals when you are considering them for a promotion or a pay increase. Its clear that women are also victims of discrimination from supervisors who believe that all women are therefor less committed to their job, care less about what they get paid, or don't need the money as much as a man. These two different issues contribute to differences when you look at gross pay of women vs men. To deny that they are not both influencing income is just beyond reason and if we can't agree on that then there is no basis for a conversation here. The question is how much does each factor into the total discrepancy that we see. Various studies ( such as the physician study I quoted earlier) have looked into this and tried to correct for the differences in work schedules and time off. While it impossible to totally correct for these things these studies almost invariably still show a large pay differential after correcting for time off and hours worked. The real conundrum is whether we can find a way to correct this without instituting quotas that merely replace private discrimination against one group with legislative discrimination against another ultimately leading to resentment and animosity and a system that may be even more unfair. .
...Various studies ( such as the physician study I quoted earlier) have looked into this and tried to correct for the differences in work schedules and time off. While it impossible to totally correct for these things these studies almost invariably still show a large pay differential after correcting for time off and hours worked. The real conundrum is whether we can find a way to correct this without instituting quotas that merely replace private discrimination against one group with legislative discrimination against another ultimately leading to resentment and animosity and a system that may be even more unfair. .The Paycheck Fairness Act is not about instituting quotas: It is about -- (from Wikipedia) "making wages more transparent"; "requiring that employers prove that wage discrepancies are tied to legitimate business qualifications and not gender"; and "prohibiting companies from taking retaliatory action against employees who raise concerns about gender-based wage discrimination." This law is needed because the current Equal Pay Act doesn't function to actually protect women from discriminatory pay practices, because Employers have found legal ways (in court cases) to get around abiding by the spirit of the Equal Pay Act. Hence, the on-going pay discrepancies for women.
Again you need to back up your comments with data which you have repeatedly failed to do.It's in the PDF I linked to earlier. It is you and the rest of the those who claim that employers discriminate against women just because they are women who need to back it back with evidence. Your study where the participants self report their numbers and where women are represented twice as much as men doesn't prove anything.
I'd just as soon not get involved to any extent in this discussion but, quoting George:I did take that into consideration.In our studio the younger girls make as much as I used to when I was their age.Not really applicable, George unless you factor in the inflation increases ever since you were young. For example, when I hired into Douglas Aircraft in 1952 as a night time technician while I was at UCLA during the day, I started at $1.43 an hour. Using that reasoning, women technicians today are extremely well paid if they are making $7.00 an hour. :lol: Occam
But not worry, the low fertility of feminists an other Leftoids won't allow them to do damage for much longer.Yup. :-)
Also, you would need to explain how it is fair that being married and having children means women should earn less than men who are married and have children. An obvious answer (for the # of children) would be that women choose to be their children's primary caregivers (and have less time, therefore, to be in the paid workforce). But to what degree are they making this choice, simply because men most often abdicate a role of primary caregiver, thus leaving little actual choice to women? The biological difference argument only goes so far. Women produce milk that is good for developing human babies. But beyond this biologically ordained early developmental role, there is nothing, that I am aware of, that biologically makes men inferior as potential primary caregivers of their children.Lets make it plain. Women are compelled by their estrogen to be nurturers to babies and small children - this means they want to stay and bond with them. Men are not biochemically suited for this behavior. Unless of course they're effeminate men, which means their women will leave them soon.