Author
|
Topic: Young women in NYC earning more than young men
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Sven
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9972
|
posted 15 August 2007 08:02 AM
quote: Originally posted by Michelle: Somehow I doubt that single mothers are pushing up the average in NYC. My thought when reading this was to wonder whether this might be because there might be more single women without children on average in NYC than elsewhere. (Ha! I finally clicked on the link after writing this and read the article, and sure enough, that's why!) I think many professional women with children end up dealing with the "mommy track" while men with children tend not to end up on "daddy track" since unpaid domestic labour tends to mostly be done by women on average.
This is an important angle on the gender-equity debate regarding compensation. It wouldn’t surprise me in the least to hear that single professional woman (without children) earn more than single professional men (without children). Girls do better in school than boys. Girls graduate at higher rates than boys. I believe there are more women in college now than men (see Chart 2) and they do better than men in college. So, why wouldn’t that translate to higher earning potential in the work world? So, when there is an equal playing field, it doesn’t surprise me that women excel. And, what is the single biggest factor that tilts that playing field? I think it’s women staying home with children, not systemic gender discrimination (although the latter is doubtless a factor). How can a woman stay home with children for ten or twenty years and then expect to earn the same income as a man who has worked that whole time in a profession? That is at the heart of pay inequity. I’ve said it before on babble but I think that until men stay home with children at the same rate as women do, there will never be gender equity in the work world, no matter what employers may do. [ 15 August 2007: Message edited by: Sven ]
From: Eleutherophobics of the World...Unite!!!!! | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
remind
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6289
|
posted 15 August 2007 09:16 AM
quote: Originally posted by Sven:
This is an important angle on the gender-equity debate regarding compensation. It wouldn’t surprise me in the least to hear that single professional woman (without children) earn more than single professional men (without children). Girls do better in school than boys. Girls graduate at higher rates than boys. I believe there are more women in college now than men (see Chart 2) and they do better than men in college. So, why wouldn’t that translate to higher earning potential in the work world?
Because the men are still hired to do the hgiher paying job discriptions where the qualifications are equal. For example, in one of my social work classes there were 5 men and 23 women. The instructor stated that those 5 men would have team leading positions well before the women whom they graduated with would. A state ment that held true, do to the patriarchial systemic bias. quote: So, when there is an equal playing field, it doesn’t surprise me that women excel.And, what is the single biggest factor that tilts that playing field? I think it’s women staying home with children, not systemic gender discrimination (although the latter is doubtless a factor).
There is seldom an equal playing field because of the patriarchial system and it is not the woman's fault that it remains. quote: How can a woman stay home with children for ten or twenty years and then expect to earn the same income as a man who has worked that whole time in a profession? That is at the heart of pay inequity.
Because a woman has been working in several professions during that time period and it is people who fail to realize this, such as yourself. quote: I’ve said it before on babble but I think that until men stay home with children at the same rate as women do, there will never be gender equity in the work world, no matter what employers may do.
Nonsense.
From: "watching the tide roll away" | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Free_Radical
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 12633
|
posted 15 August 2007 09:25 AM
quote: Originally posted by remind: Because the men are still hired to do the hgiher paying job discriptions where the qualifications are equal.For example, in one of my social work classes there were 5 men and 23 women. The instructor stated that those 5 men would have team leading positions well before the women whom they graduated with would. A state ment that held true, do to the patriarchial systemic bias.
Employers likely are hesitant - in the current environment - to hire, promote or invest in the female candidate/employee because there is a strong likelihood that they will leave to raise children.Unless the likelihood of that happening with a male candidate/employee is the same as with a female, that bias is going to exist. So really, Sven's arguments still stand up. It is time lost to child rearing - as well as the potential for time lost to child rearing - that is at the heart of pay equity.
From: In between . . . | Registered: May 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
remind
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6289
|
posted 15 August 2007 10:02 AM
quote: Originally posted by Free_Radical:
Employers likely are hesitant - in the current environment - to hire, promote or invest in the female candidate/employee because there is a strong likelihood that they will leave to raise children.Unless the likelihood of that happening with a male candidate/employee is the same as with a female, that bias is going to exist. So really, Sven's arguments still stand up. It is time lost to child rearing - as well as the potential for time lost to child rearing - that is at the heart of pay equity.
It is the same, by far the majority of women go back to work after maternity leave, and men also get maternity leave here in Canada. There is no time lost to child rearing, peoplewho think this are the largest problem there is.
From: "watching the tide roll away" | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sven
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9972
|
posted 15 August 2007 10:07 AM
quote: Originally posted by remind: Because a woman has been working in several professions during that time period and it is people who fail to realize this, such as yourself.
So, what professions does a stay-at-home mom practice that would, for example, make her a better engineer, lawyer, surgeon, etc. and put her on equal footing with another person (male or female) who practiced the specific profession for fifteen to twenty years without interruption? It’s absurd to think that the stay-at-home mom who returns to work outside of the home after a many years’ absence should be compensated the same as those who have remained in the profession the entire time. They simply are not worth as much to an organization. For example, going to law school teaches a person basic legal principles. But, the most valuable lawyers are those with many years of experience who can provide practical counsel to a particular client because the lawyers have seen the same or similar problems countless times. If a lawyer practices law for three to five years after law school and then leaves the profession to stay home with children full time for fifteen years, that lawyer is simply not as valuable to a firm or to the lawyer’s clients as a lawyer who practiced law full time for twenty years. But that is not evident to people who fail to realize the reality of that, such as yourself.
From: Eleutherophobics of the World...Unite!!!!! | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1234567
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 14443
|
posted 15 August 2007 10:47 AM
Wake up!If a company can get away with paying less for it's workers it will! Here is an example: When Safeway unionized, they got rid of most of the full time positions and now hire lots of part time people so they don't have to pay benefits. The bottom line is profit. If they can get away with paying less they will.
From: speak up, even if your voice shakes | Registered: Aug 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sven
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9972
|
posted 15 August 2007 10:47 AM
quote: Originally posted by Free_Radical: Exactly. Looking at it from the perspective of employers it makes absolutely no sense to arbitrarily pay female workers less than males. To be profitable, they need to attract the best employees they can - holding back on wages of some of their staff just leaves them open to losing those employees to a rival.
In the competitive capitalist system in which businesses operate, businesses must look at every possible means of gaining a competitive advantage, and that includes attracting, and then retaining, the most highly skilled employees that it can find. Our company has about 25,000 employees worldwide and we work very hard at attracting and retaining the best possible employees. It would simply be foolish of us to arbitrarily pay women less than men, simply because they were women. Those who look at the gender equity issue too often think it’s simply a matter of making employers “get it” that they need to pay women the same as men. But, they ignore two key factors: (1) It is in employers’ best interest to attract and retain the best employees (men and women) and (2) 99% of stay-at-home parents who take years away from their profession are women. To simply ignore those two factors is to not look at the issue honestly.
From: Eleutherophobics of the World...Unite!!!!! | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Sven
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9972
|
posted 15 August 2007 11:09 AM
One of the key things here is that pay equity depends on the type of career a person chooses. If the career is a highly-skilled profession, then long absences from that profession will result in unequal pay. But, if the career is a very low-skilled profession (turning a wrench on an assembly line), then a long absence from that kind of job is not going to be as detrimental (if the skills can be learned in a few weeks or months) and there should be less, if any, pay inequality. But, in those latter instances, there is often a union at the company and unions generally have pay scales that are tied to years of experience, not demonstrated skills, and, so, one would end up with a pay disparity where there shouldn’t be one.So, I think there is a continuum. Highly-skilled professions, where years of experience are critical should have pay inequality when one person has many more years of experience than another person. At the other end of the spectrum, there should be little, if any, pay inequality, because the skills to do a job can be rapidly acquired upon reentering the workforce, even after an absence of many years.
From: Eleutherophobics of the World...Unite!!!!! | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Michelle
Moderator
Babbler # 560
|
posted 15 August 2007 11:16 AM
quote: Originally posted by Sven: To say that this is all due to gender discrimination practices of employers is to not understand the problem.
Here's the thing, Sven. First of all, you're posting in the feminism forum when you've been told several times since your suspension that you're not allowed to post in the feminism and anti-racism forums anymore. Secondly, how about not telling women they "don't understand the problem" of gender discrimination in the workplace, hmm? Please, I'm asking you nicely because I don't want to ban you. Stay out of the feminism forum.
From: I've got a fever, and the only prescription is more cowbell. | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
remind
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6289
|
posted 15 August 2007 11:22 AM
quote: Originally posted by Sven: So, what professions does a stay-at-home mom practice that would, for example, make her a better engineer, lawyer, surgeon, etc. and put her on equal footing with another person (male or female) who practiced the specific profession for fifteen to twenty years without interruption?
I would bet very few women, if any, in those professions would choose to stay at home for 10-20 years. That is a strawman. quote: It’s absurd to think that the stay-at-home mom who returns to work outside of the home after a many years’ absence should be compensated the same as those who have remained in the profession the entire time. They simply are not worth as much to an organization.
As above. quote: But that is not evident to people who fail to realize the reality of that, such as yourself.
Here in Canada, as opposed to the USA, as I said above, the vast majority women return to work after maternmity leave is up, the fathers also get the same maternity leave pretty much, as the woman does. If there is an assumption at play, here in Canada,leave sooned than men, they are wrong in their presumption.
From: "watching the tide roll away" | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sven
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9972
|
posted 15 August 2007 11:25 AM
quote: Originally posted by Michelle: Here's the thing, Sven. First of all, you're posting in the feminism forum when you've been told several times since your suspension that you're not allowed to post in the feminism and anti-racism forums anymore. Secondly, how about not telling women they "don't understand the problem" of gender discrimination in the workplace, hmm?
First of all, I don’t believe I was asked to stay out of the feminism forum. Secondly, I’m not telling women (or anyone else) what they must think, no more than when making an argument on any other subject. Substantively, are you saying that my arguments are off-based? Or, is it simply because I’m a man that they are “unacceptable”? In other words, if my sig other, a woman, made these same posts (and she has the identical viewpoint), would they be acceptable simply because she is a woman? How about looking at the merits of the arguments and not the gender of the arguer?
From: Eleutherophobics of the World...Unite!!!!! | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Michelle
Moderator
Babbler # 560
|
posted 15 August 2007 11:28 AM
I don't think there are many of us who don't recognize that women with children are put on the "mommy track" if they take maternity leaves and need to work reasonable hours in order to look after their kids, especially since women do way more unpaid domestic labour than men.But that's not the ONLY reason for women making less than men. It would be convenient if we could blame it all on women for having babies and acquiescing to a larger share of the domestic and caring work at home, but I don't think that's really the case. Another thread was recently posted which said that men not only feel more comfortable with asking for raises or negotiating higher pay, but they are rewarded for doing so whereas women are rebuffed when they do it. There is also the fact that, in a patriarchal society, lots of women gravitate toward gendered (low-paying) jobs and careers. To simplistically say, well, it's women's choices that are leading to their lower pay, is not a very good analysis, feminist or otherwise.
From: I've got a fever, and the only prescription is more cowbell. | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Sven
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9972
|
posted 15 August 2007 11:49 AM
quote: Originally posted by Michelle: I'm pretty sure you have been. But in case you're right, I'm asking you now. The reason you were suspended is because of outrageously rude trolling in the feminism forum, and your propensity to dominate feminism threads with your male, and not overly feminist, point of view. As a result, I would like you to not post in this forum.
The reason I was suspended was because of the blow up with remind. And, rightfully so. And, I have refrained from getting in any conversation here with anyone that is even remotely like that blow up. In other words, I’m behaving. In contrast, the discussion here is legitimate and not “antifeminist”. It addresses a significant factor that leads to pay inequality that is too often ignored in favor of a simplified demonization of bigoted employers. In my early posts above, I explicitly acknowledged that gender discrimination is a factor in pay inequality. But, there are reasons why gender discrimination may not be the principal factor in pay inequality. I’m arguing that the patriarchal society expects women, not men, to stay at home with children, that that is the principal cause of pay inequality, and that there is no easy solution to address that (I think the solution must found in men staying at home with children at the same rate women do). So, by stating that, you are now asking me to stay out of the feminism forum? I’ve already been admonished—with the vacation—for the prior blow up and I have refrained from engaging in any discussions like that. Are you now asking me to stay out of this forum because of the prior blow up? Or, is it because of what I’m posting here today? If it’s due to the former reason, I’ve already “served” my vacation and have behaved since that time. If it’s for the latter reason, I ask you to reconsider because what I’m advocating is neither a male or female perspective—but something that is, as Stephen Gordon noted above, something that is being legitimately debated.
From: Eleutherophobics of the World...Unite!!!!! | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
remind
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6289
|
posted 15 August 2007 12:39 PM
Actually, apparently neither Sven, nor Stephen Gordon, actually read the article Stephen linked to, with any kind of perception.Page 3 of the article, clearly supports my contentions that: 1. highly skilled women do not leave the job, 2. maternity leave addresses choices in staying or leaving to the positive for women, a particular factor in Canada, as opposed to the USA where paid maternity leave is not equal to Canada's system. 3. studies in trying to prove the theory of human capital, whereby women leaving, because of child bearing and their loss of experience creates the wage disparity is disproven by the theorists own attempts to prove it. Women who are paid well do not leave, and as such they actually have proven the single most important factor in wage disparity is on the job discrimination bias against women, based upon what are clearly misconceptions that women will leave to bear children for extended periods. And Sven you were asked to stay out of the feminist forum, and your telling me, I have no understanding of factors in the wage disparity, is just another example why. Perhaps you should read the article Stephen linked to before you tried to draw support for your misconceptions from it?!
From: "watching the tide roll away" | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
remind
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6289
|
posted 15 August 2007 03:51 PM
quote: Originally posted by Free_Radical: You might want to read the summary a little more closely.
Please do read page 3 regarding the findings of what happened regarding those women who had high paying jobs and who did not take maternity leave, not what the women were asking for. They did not leave their highly skilled highly paid job positions, unlike what Sven and Stephen contended was the case. Nor like those other followers of the failed human capital theory, who had believed that this would be the case in regards to time accrued on the job and women not gaining time accrued, over a career time, equal to that of men in highly skilled highly paid job positions, because they would leave for maternity reasons. The women who were highly skilled, and paid, did not leave and even more came back when maternity leave was offered. Child care was a desire not the data collected about actual women who do, or do not leave the work force. Why bother with the human capital theory Sven? It was already what you put forth that was in error, as I noted, just as the human capital theory was found to be a failure back into 2006 when the linked paper was published. And just like those who put forth the human capital theory to try and explain workplace discrimination was not present, and tried to postulate, as you did, that it was actually women themselves who were at fault for leaving to raise kids, and not acrruing work history. And just like you, they were proven to be in error, by their own studies no less.
From: "watching the tide roll away" | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Sven
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9972
|
posted 15 August 2007 04:20 PM
quote: Originally posted by remind: they actually have proven the single most important factor in wage disparity is on the job discrimination bias against women
Who has “proven” this? quote: Originally posted by remind: Please do read page 3 regarding the findings of what happened regarding those women who had high paying jobs and who did not take maternity leave, not what the women were asking for. They did not leave their highly skilled highly paid job positions, unlike what Sven and Stephen contended was the case.
I think it’s true that women with high-paying jobs tend to be those who have never left the workforce to take care of children in the first place. My partner is a perfect example of that. We have no kids and she has a long and successful career as a corporate lawyer, one of the top attorneys in her field in Minneapolis. And she’s compensated accordingly. At the same time, I can name many, many other attorneys who have left the practice to stay home with their children. If they choose to practice law again, they will undoubtedly not be paid the same as their male colleagues who stayed in the practice without interruption, if they are absent from the profession for a long period of time. quote: Originally posted by remind: And just like those who put forth the human capital theory to try and explain workplace discrimination was not present, and tried to postulate, as you did, that it was actually women themselves who were at fault for leaving to raise kids, and not acrruing work history.
Actually, I don’t think that women are “at fault” for leaving the workforce to raise their kids. Rather, society (i.e., both women and men) is “at fault” for expecting women to be the ones who stay home with their children in 99% of the case when a parent stays home to care for children on a full-time basis. Can you seriously argue that if men and women stayed home full time to care for children at equal rates that that wouldn’t significantly reduce the unequal pay earned by men and women? Does gender discrimination occur in the workplace? Of course. But, is it the sole, or even principal, reason why there is a pay gap between women and men? Not from what I’ve read. That being said, I would appreciate links to any economic studies that have been done that are contrary to that view.
From: Eleutherophobics of the World...Unite!!!!! | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
1234567
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 14443
|
posted 15 August 2007 05:48 PM
quote: Originally posted by remind: they actually have proven the single most important factor in wage disparity is on the job discrimination bias against women --------------------------------------------------------------------------------Who has “proven” this?
What are you doing here? I want you to prove to ME that as a woman I am not discriminated against on the job! And I don't mean using YOUR personal opinions. Find concrete evidence please. YOu will never get it. The law of human nature is that those in power will fight to the death before they give up power, men have the power and you are a perfect example of one fighting to keep it.
From: speak up, even if your voice shakes | Registered: Aug 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
remind
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6289
|
posted 15 August 2007 07:04 PM
Your ancedotal experience Sven means nothing actually, other than that may be true for your narrow group of peers in your city, though highly doubtfulm even there. I can easily give my own ancedotal information that is close to the example you give of your partner, only the opposite.
I have a good friend, corporate lawyer, part of the legal team that actually drew up NAFTA, which kinda off put me on our friendship, but our partners remain friends so we just talk about our common interests like poker. Anyhow, she has her high paid career, on Howe St, along with 2 children. Is a hands on mom, and a good one. Never left the work force. And by the way you stated professional women highly skilled and paid left the work force in high numbers and I stated they wouldn't. Apparently, again you did not read the article namely page 3, where it states they self select and stay in the workforce even though they have children. And again this finding would be even more pertinent in Canada, where we do not ascribe to the false theory of "human capital".
From: "watching the tide roll away" | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Solid_Choke
recent-rabble-rouser
Babbler # 14445
|
posted 15 August 2007 07:59 PM
quote: Originally posted by 1234567: Wake up!If a company can get away with paying less for it's workers it will! Here is an example: When Safeway unionized, they got rid of most of the full time positions and now hire lots of part time people so they don't have to pay benefits. The bottom line is profit. If they can get away with paying less they will.
I happen to be self-employed. Do you think if I could hire a women for less than I could for a man with the same productivity(read: experience) that I would hire a single man? If that was the case I would simple toss any applications I received from men into the trash heap just like any other rational, profit seeking, person would do.
From: USA | Registered: Aug 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
500_Apples
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 12684
|
posted 16 August 2007 06:37 AM
This thread is very perplexing.For some reason, a fair number of literate people seem to be in complete dneial that real discrimination can exist. Ummm, it does, even among "rational" people. Why would an employer pay a woman less than a man? He might subconciously/conciously believe she's irrational, she'll leave to take care of the kids, she's so nice so she'll accept lower pay, she won't put up a fuss, her work is less valuable, et cetera et cetera. These are some of the discirminatory factors women face. Anybody who is not a handsome upper class tall and fit caucasian male of proper accent will face discrimination. The predisposition to discrimination and stereotypes is within human nature, and now we are at a stage in history (and have been for some time) that these predispositions do more harm than good. Getting rid is not so easy as saying "we are human, we are rational!" but might actually require strong intervention. Of course maternity leave is a factor. Of course women having on average less energy on the job than they would if men cared as much for offspring in the years following is a factor. But for some reason these factors are being magnified here. why? Even on this forum, a mere 2 or 3 weeks ago, a thread was posted measuring gender discrimination in a very controlled way. *** Now, as for New York. Is this 20% pay difference uniform across racial lines, or is it equal pay between whites, whereas black and latina women make 50% more than their male counterparts? My question comes from the race-gender divide in college attendance in the United States. Another factor is that there seems to be an underlying assumption that men's pay are a control group, and women's pay is merely a ratio of that group. Men are also evolving as a group. If you look at the graph on page 3 of Stephen Gordon's link, in the past thirty years women's pay has increased ~30%, and men's have been flat. Under our measurement methodology, we might be exagerrating the performance of women by comparing it to the anemic performance of men. Is there something wrong with men? Attention Deficit Disorder, declining sperm counts... maybe we have not noticed an industrial pollutant affects men adversely? Are we screwing up our boys?
From: Montreal, Quebec | Registered: Jun 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
1234567
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 14443
|
posted 16 August 2007 07:04 AM
quote: All I know is, I needed the job and didn't make waves until I could get out.
YES. As a single mom, I had no choice but to accept what I was offered and they knew it. I also think that years and years of putting up with that has taught me to undervalue my skills to the point where I really have to fight myself to ask for more. So in a way we may be initially paid less but in the end we do it to ourselves by not asking for more. I hope I am making sense.
From: speak up, even if your voice shakes | Registered: Aug 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Sven
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9972
|
posted 16 August 2007 07:13 AM
quote: Originally posted by 1234567: What are you doing here? I want you to prove to ME that as a woman I am not discriminated against on the job! And I don't mean using YOUR personal opinions. Find concrete evidence please.
You may very well have been discriminated against because you are a woman. There would be no basis for me to challenge your personal experience. Besides, as a general proposition, I’ve already conceded that gender discrimination exists. quote: Originally posted by 1234567: YOu will never get it. The law of human nature is that those in power will fight to the death before they give up power, men have the power and you are a perfect example of one fighting to keep it.
I will never “get it” that gender pay inequality is strictly a matter of gender discrimination? No. I guess I won’t. A 2005 report issued by the American Association of University Women cited a research study that indicated “20 percent of the pay gap is “unexplained” and hence could be attributed to discrimination (or other factors not included in their analysis)”. In other words, at least 80% of the pay inequality gap was due to factors other than discrimination, including “Of the many factors that account for the differences in earnings between men and women, our model indicates that work patterns are key. Specifically, women have fewer years of work experience, work fewer hours per year, are less likely to work a full-time schedule, and leave the labor force for longer periods of time than [do] men.” While the AAUW report initially looks like a summary of opinion polls, the interesting part of the report is the report’s discussion of economists’ analyses of the issue. Gender pay inequality can largely be explained by measurable factors (years of work experience, education level, etc.). But, the analysis is complex because there are so many variables that can cause the disparity. Gender discrimination, according to the AAUW “may” play a relatively small role in causing that disparity. What’s the good news? In 1970, women earned 60% of what men earned. Today, that gap has already been cut in half. Obviously, there is a lot of progress that needs to occur. Trying to take an honest and open look at the causes of that pay gap is necessary in order to find further solutions to reducing that gap.
From: Eleutherophobics of the World...Unite!!!!! | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|