The Truth -- "women earn 75 cents on a man's dollar"
Mark
100 x Female/Male ratio, median income, year-round full-time employees
'00 '05 '10 '15 '20 '25 '30 '35 '40 '45 '50 '55 '60 '65 '70 '75 '80 '85
[..72 ][ 60 ][ 56 ][ 54 ][ 65 ] -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 1970
[ .. 72 ][ 57 ][ 54 ][ 56 ][ 69 ][ 82 ] -- -- -- -- 1980
[ .. 70 ][ 64 ][ 63 ][ 61 ][ 69 ][ 79 ][ 90 ] -- -- 1990
[ .. 65 ] 82 59 64 62 63 64 73 71 78 86 [ 91 ] -- 1995
[ .. 81 ] 70 69 66 64 67 70 70 75 79 87 [ 91 ] 2000
[ .. 77 ] 79 69 66 69 70 70 70 75 83 90 [ 94 ] 2001
The years on the top denote the time of birth, '80 means 1980. Each figure is
for the corresponding 5 year age interval, except those enclosed in [...].
The last "94" figure states that in 2001 of the people born between 1976 and
1986, women earned 94 cents to the dollar of men.
As you can see, it's almost entirely generational: there's only a slight
decrease going downward, but a steady increase at about 10 cents per decade
going to the right for the generations born from 1945 onward.
It's almost at parity, even now. The projected figures for 2003 for a 22 year
old and 15 year old would be 94 and 98 cents on the dollar, respectively.
This is the straight-line projection for the post-war generations up to 2020:
Projection, 92.27% fit
'45 '50 '55 '60 '65 '70 '75 '80 '85 '90 '95 '00 '05
[ 72 ][ 81 ] -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 1980
[ 69 ][ 78 ][ 87 ] -- -- -- -- -- -- 1990
66 70 74 79 83 [ 90 ] -- -- -- -- -- 1995
64 69 73 77 82 86 [ 93 ] -- -- -- -- 2000
65 69 74 78 83 87 [ 94 ] -- -- -- -- 2001
63 67 72 76 81 85 89 94 98 -- -- -- 2005
61 66 70 75 79 84 88 92 97 101 -- -- 2010
60 65 69 73 78 82 87 91 95 100 104 -- 2015
59 63 68 72 76 81 85 90 94 98 103 107 2020
the projection:
8.81 increase per decade in birth year
2.78 decrease per decade in time
76.68 for birth year '60 in 1995
The wage level was also higher for pre-war generations. The reason why is
about to become clear in a subsequent article.
Starting around 2005-2010, the youngest girls and women should be outearning
boys and men. There is a tendency showing toward levelling off in the
actual figures, but it can't really slow down too much, because it's college
education that fuels the highest positions in the work world and the trend
in that change is even more epochal.
... to be continued...
nethead8
> The wage comparison broken down by birthdate:
>
> 100 x Female/Male ratio, median income, year-round full-time employees
>
> '00 '05 '10 '15 '20 '25 '30 '35 '40 '45 '50 '55 '60 '65 '70 '75 '80 '85
> [..72 ][ 60 ][ 56 ][ 54 ][ 65 ] -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 1970
> [ .. 72 ][ 57 ][ 54 ][ 56 ][ 69 ][ 82 ] -- -- -- -- 1980
> [ .. 70 ][ 64 ][ 63 ][ 61 ][ 69 ][ 79 ][ 90 ] -- -- 1990
> [ .. 65 ] 82 59 64 62 63 64 73 71 78 86 [ 91 ] -- 1995
> [ .. 81 ] 70 69 66 64 67 70 70 75 79 87 [ 91 ] 2000
> [ .. 77 ] 79 69 66 69 70 70 70 75 83 90 [ 94 ] 2001
>
> The years on the top denote the time of birth, '80 means 1980. Each figure is
> for the corresponding 5 year age interval, except those enclosed in [...].
> The last "94" figure states that in 2001 of the people born between 1976 and
> 1986, women earned 94 cents to the dollar of men.
None of this takes into account other factors - type of work done, work assignments
within the same company, overtime (it's been shown and proven that women work less
of it = meaning less $$$$$$), overall hours worked (as a real-world example = the
line of work I have been in for the past three years, I've noticed that it is the women who
consistently call in sick or off work for whatever reason, not the guys).
All of this should be factored in and is, I believe, the true reason if indeed there is a
"wage gap". If women (as a group) don't want to work long hours, take "hardship post"
type relocations to undesirable areas, work without fail even when they are sick and
aren't feeling their best (men often do), work in dangerous, dirty jobs where the discomfort
level is high, that's all well and fine - that's their free choice. They shouldn't be surprised if
they don't make quite as much though.... Same pay for the same work and hours has been
mandated by law in the U.S. for quite some time. It would not be in the best interests of an
employer to try and get by with paying women less, and to my knowledge none do it.
Jack
Mitchell Holman
news:MK_Ra.9295$Bp2.4673@fed1read07:
Bingo. If you don't want to work hard to the
top notch promotions, don't whine when they don't
come showering down on you.
Lee
To my knowledge none do it as well.
I have served as an HR temp, filling in for usually pregnant HR
Directors.
In this position, or the positions of F/C Bookkeeper, Payroll Clerk,
etc, I had access top resumes, time sheets, payroll and paychecks.
Men and women were paid exactly the same - to the dollar - for equal
experience with identical titles.
The woman who booked the most hours was the only female JR Partner.
She earned more than any other woman at the firm but for the female Sr
partner.
The only female Sr partner left daily at 4:45pm to get her 2 kids from
daycare.
She would whine to me that she earned 80% of the two Sr Male Partners,
that her car lease was 50% of the Benzes the guys had.
The men formed the Company in 1977. She joined in 1989.
The men worked until 8pm - one did this every day he was in the
office.
When he wasn't in the office he was travelling that weekend
cultivating clients.
She simply did not see the extra work and value the men earned, and
could not connect that with her pay and her company car stipend.
This woman was very educated and smart - she just couldn't get the
connection between hard work, hours on the job and compensation.
L
Society
news:Xns93BCBAA34...@216.148.227.77...
>
> Jack as "nethead8" wrote...
>
> > Mark wrote...
> >> The wage comparison broken down by birthdate:
Source? Oh you didn't bother to cite one.
> >> [unverifiable statistical claims snipped]
> >
> > None of this takes into account other factors -
> > type of work done, work assignments within
> > the same company, overtime (it's been shown
> > and proven that women work less of it = meaning
> > less $$$$$$), overall hours worked [...]
Ever heard of a man having a "bad hair day"?
As George Carlin exclaimed, "Bad hair day?
What the h*** is that?!! Just put on a hat
and get your lazy a** into work!"
> > All of this should be factored in and is, I believe,
> > the true reason if indeed there is a "wage gap".
> > If women (as a group) don't want to work long
> > hours, take "hardship post" type relocations to
> > undesirable areas, work without fail even when
> > they are sick and aren't feeling their best (men
> > often do), work in dangerous, dirty jobs where
> > the discomfort level is high, that's all well and fine -
> > that's their free choice.
Ever notice how women crowd into jobs that are
indoors with heat and air conditioning? Government
sinecure-type jobs are also attractive to women.
Look around for a low-risk, low-effort, low-personal
investment in the job sort of workplace and you'll
find it packed with women. Sure there's discrimination,
women are making discriminations between the
cushy jobs they like and the tough ones they expect
the man who'll support them to take.
> > They shouldn't be surprised if they don't
> > make quite as much though....
Being surprised when one doesn't automatically
enjoy favorable outcomes as if by magic is a sign
of childish thinking.
> > Same pay for the same work and hours has
> > been mandated by law in the U.S. for quite
> > some time. It would not be in the best interests
> > of an employer to try and get by with paying
> > women less, and to my knowledge none do it.
>
> Bingo. If you don't want to work hard to the
> top notch promotions, don't whine when they don't
> come showering down on you.
Still, let's suppose for a moment that women are
happy to collect only 56 or 63 or 75 cents on the
dollar for the very same job a man would only do
is paid a whole dollar. Given that the largest single
business expense in the US today is labor, what
business could afford not to sweep out all the men
in its employ and immediately replace them with
all those cheaper-to-hire women? Ha ha, so much
for the common feminist claim that capitalism
buttresses 'The Patriarchy'.
Hmmm. Given that capitalist businesses tend to
seek the best value for their money, and supposing
the feminist claim that businesses prefer hiring men
over women, is that not evidence that _men_ are
underpaid compared to what women take in???
--
Around junior year of high school, boys begin to repress
their interest in foreign languages, literature, art history,
sociology, and anthropology because they know an art history
major will make less than an engineer. Partially as a result
of his different spending expectation (the possibility he
might have to support a woman but cannot expect a woman
to support him), more than 85 percent of students who take
engineering as a college major are men; more than 80 percent
of the art history majors are women.
The difference in the earnings of the female art historian
vs. the male engineer appears to be a measure of discrimination,
when in fact both sexes knew ahead of time engineering
would pay more. In fact, the woman who enters engineering
with the same lack of experience as the man averages $571
per year _more_ than her male counterpart.
Warren Farrell, _The Myth of Male Power_;
New York: Berkley Books, 1996
page 11. [emphasis Farrell's]
Mark Sobolewski
> "Mitchell Holman" <ta2...@comcast.com> wrote in message
> news:Xns93BCBAA34...@216.148.227.77...
> > Jack as "nethead8" wrote..
> > > Same pay for the same work and hours has
> > > been mandated by law in the U.S. for quite
> > > some time. It would not be in the best interests
> > > of an employer to try and get by with paying
> > > women less, and to my knowledge none do it.
> >
> > Bingo. If you don't want to work hard to the
> > top notch promotions, don't whine when they don't
> > come showering down on you.
>
> Still, let's suppose for a moment that women are
> happy to collect only 56 or 63 or 75 cents on the
> dollar for the very same job a man would only do
> is paid a whole dollar. Given that the largest single
> business expense in the US today is labor, what
> business could afford not to sweep out all the men
> in its employ and immediately replace them with
> all those cheaper-to-hire women? Ha ha, so much
> for the common feminist claim that capitalism
> buttresses 'The Patriarchy'.
>
> Hmmm. Given that capitalist businesses tend to
> seek the best value for their money, and supposing
> the feminist claim that businesses prefer hiring men
> over women, is that not evidence that _men_ are
> underpaid compared to what women take in???
I have a few observations about this:
Big businesses during the 80's and 90's went on a women
hiring frenzy and even created lots of feminist perks
such as on-site daycare to retain their more valuable
women employees. This includes Microsoft.
So ironically, big business got a green light
from many leftist and feminist organizations to
engage in monopolistic behaviour, predatory
pricing, corporate welfare and all that bad stuff.
So it makes sense that the companies that are
going to recover first from the recession are
those that do start looking at the bottom
line and benefit the consumer and worker
alike. We should thank feminism for helping
to kill Microsoft which is one of the worst
offenders.
regards,
Mark Sobolewski
Alfred Einstead
> None of this takes into account other factors
It doesn't matter. The regularity is there.
A picture that shows a regularity always supersedes all other pictures
and all other analyses, unless they too account for the regularity.
Where they don't the analysis is wrong. Where they do, and the
analysis is more complex, it is ruled out by Occam's Razor. Either
way, it's superseded.
It doesn't need to take into account "other factors". The "other
factors" are dependent variables too, in large measure also taken
into account by the indepdendent variables, whatever they are.
One of the most important ones (cohort and, behind that, culture)
is what the regularity reveals.
Alfred Einstead
> None of this takes into account other factors
To further emphasize the point just made (which, of course,
you deleted):
92.27% of the variation in the listing is accounted for by
the straight line extrapolation
8.81 increase per decade in birth year
2.78 per decade decrease in time
76.68 for birth year '60 in 1995
(Only 2.7% more is accounted for by incorporating acceleration
or deceleration).
That's the bottom line, and the ONLY bottom line that is
relevant.
Alfred Einstead
> hours worked (as a real-world example = the line of work I have been
> in for the past three years, I've noticed that it is the women who
> consistently call in sick or off work for whatever reason, not the
> guys). All of this should be factored in and is, I believe, the true
> reason if indeed there is a "wage gap".
None of which is relevant.
You need to learn how to read what you're responding to. First
of all the figures were for YEAR ROUND FULL TIME. So, what's up with
the comment concerning "hours worked"?
Second, the article said there ALREADY IS wage parity is that the
whole notion of "75 cents on a dollar" was never anything more than
a distraction. So, what's up with the extra commentary that "contends"
the article by REITERATING what it's saying?!
Typical soc.menite. So knee-jerk that even when something corrborates
your point of view you STILL think it's saying the opposite, because you
can't even bother to read; just automatically jumping into blind "no
it ain't!" baby mode even at the slightest mention of magic phrases
like "75 cents on the dollar". Did you ever stop to think that it's
put in quotes in the header for a reason? Nope.
Mitchell Holman <ta2...@comcast.com> wrote:
> Bingo. If you don't want to work hard to the
> top notch promotions, don't whine when they don't
> come showering down on you.
... and the projeection (which is nearly dead on for all
generations past '45, all tiems past 1980, never off by more than
5 cents) shows disparities favoring women as high as $1.10 in the
near future.
To reiterate the conclusion stated there: there is currently
already parity; most of the disparity is accounted for by the
time you were born; and starting in around 2005-2010 the youngest
female workers will be earning as much as or more than the
corresponding male workers.
Next time, both of you, try to READ what you're actually replying
to first, instead of running off knee-jerk.
The issue of gender disparity at the top was dealt with in earlier
articles (look up "Schloegl Process"), which explains in a simple
way not only why there has to be near-complete segregation at the
top level, but also what happens when the entry level shifts
completely over the opposite way. This is the analogue of a
Schloegl Model process and is easily accounted for by a simple
bias model.
Alfred Einstead
> > > Mark wrote...
> > >> The wage comparison broken down by birthdate:
> Source? Oh you didn't bother to cite one.
Disingenuous question.
Learn how to look up the damn information on your own, lazy moron.
www.google.com: "How to use Google"
Everyone knows that these kinds of breakdowns are reported in the
US Population Reports series P-60.
> [[sic] unverifiable statistical [sic] claims snipped]
i.e., facts snipped.
> Ever heard of a man having a "bad hair day"?
As opposed to you having a bad hair life.
> Sure there's discrimination,
And who said anything about discrimination?
Typical soc.mennite. Even when the article you're responding to
corroborates your point of view, you run off knee-jerk like a
damned idiot because you can't even bother to READ what you're
replying to, which was: that there is NO WAGE GAP LEFT.
Why do you think it was put in quotes?
HELLO?! Anyone home in your head? Nope.
> Still, let's suppose for a moment that women are
> happy to collect only 56 or 63 or 75 cents on the
> dollar for the very same job a man would only do
> is paid a whole dollar.
It said 94 and figures in excess of 100 MORON for the
current and following generations.
> 'The Patriarchy'.
And what does that have to do with anything? Oh yeah, you
thought the article was a gripe about women not earning
as much as men, when it was about the EXACT OPPOSITE
because you don't know how to READ.
Alfred Einstead
> So ironically, big business got a green light
> from many leftist and feminist organizations to
> engage in monopolistic behaviour, predatory
> pricing, corporate welfare and all that bad stuff.
Feminism is irrelevant. The trends examined (along with those
for college degree attainment) go back over 100 years, long
before most feminists' grandparents were even born.
They did not make history. Humans are nothing but fauna.
History made them.
And oh yeah. Society. What "big lie" is that? Huh? That
"feminism is invalid" (which is what the article you were
responding to and "refuting" said) is invalid?!
LEARN HOW TO READ next time. You just refuted the
assertuon that feminism is invalid, which automatically
makes you a feminist. It doesn't matter what you claim
to believe. You contended it, therefore you believe the
opposite. Period. End of story.
nethead8
> mark_so...@yahoo.com (Mark Sobolewski) wrote:
> > So ironically, big business got a green light
> > from many leftist and feminist organizations to
> > engage in monopolistic behaviour, predatory
> > pricing, corporate welfare and all that bad stuff.
>
> Feminism is irrelevant. The trends examined (along with those
> for college degree attainment) go back over 100 years, long
> before most feminists' grandparents were even born.
>
> They did not make history. Humans are nothing but fauna.
> History made them.
And just what do you think "history" is exactly? People and their
actions *create* history. You've got it backwards. Individuals can, and
have, changed the direction and outcomes of it significantly.
I don't buy into your "all of our actions are irrelevant because we are
nothing but pawns of history" philosophy. No matter what sort of Usenet
pseudo-sophistry you try to employ. I'm not impressed or convinced.
Trends and patterns? They may have meaning, and then again they may
not. One of the biggest errors people make these days is assuming there is
always a link in two seperate sets of events or data. Call me a skeptic I suppose.
Jack
nethead8
> > None of this takes into account other factors
>
> To further emphasize the point just made (which, of course,
> you deleted):
If I deleted something, it wasn't to try and hide or ignore any
"point" you are making.
>
> 92.27% of the variation in the listing is accounted for by
> the straight line extrapolation
> 8.81 increase per decade in birth year
> 2.78 per decade decrease in time
> 76.68 for birth year '60 in 1995
>
> (Only 2.7% more is accounted for by incorporating acceleration
> or deceleration).
>
> That's the bottom line, and the ONLY bottom line that is
> relevant.
The bottom line here is that figures can be made to say what is wanted
to be said. When all factors are taken into account, (and they are *not*
irrelevant) the so called wage gap if indeed there is one, is so small as to
be insignificant. But the *real issue* here is that it is still being used and touted as
evidence of supposed discrimination that allegedly still exists as far as
wages in the American workplace go. And its a lie. I don't buy it.
Throw out as many figures as you want to.
Jack
Mark
>Source? Oh you didn't bother to cite one.
[blah, blah, blah]
And what lie is that, oh Big Master Of All Anti-Feminists?
The "lie" (stated in the original article you claim to be objecting
to so vociferously) that:
"EVEN IF you only look at aggregate totals you STILL find that
there is now parity amongst the current generation and that the
whole contention (as ClEARLY indicated by the fact that the
notion was put in quotes in the header) is nothing but
feminist deception"?
Nice going, moron. You just called the very thing you claim to be
in support of a Big Lie.
That automatically means you believe the exact opposite. Even if you
don't, you do now by your own admission. Even if you say you don't
then you're lying, because you do, by your own admission. Period, end
of story.
Why do you think the subject header says "The Truth"? Huh? Why do
you think the notion is put in quotes?
That's the millionth time you and your sorry ilk have had to be corrected
for your impairment and outright knee-jerk stupidity of refuting things
that actually reiterate what you claim to believe in because your
collective knee-jerk stupidity.
>Ever heard of a man having a "bad hair day"?
Or a "bad hair life", in your case.
>Still, let's suppose for a moment that women are
>happy to collect only 56 or 63 or 75 cents
[blah, blah, running off the handle about things that bave ABSOLUTELY
NOTHING to do what he's responding to because he's too reading-impaired
to understand with he's reading]
It said 94 for the current generation in 2001 and projects to figures over
100 for the current generation at the present time.
Learn how to read, damned moron. And learn how to look up your
own damn information. I'm not your damned mother and I'm not going to
hand-hold you because you're either too lazy or too stupid to learn
how to do your own searches on the Web and Library.
Michael Snyder
> "nethead8" <neth...@cox.net> wrote:
> > hours worked (as a real-world example = the line of work I have been
> > in for the past three years, I've noticed that it is the women who
> > consistently call in sick or off work for whatever reason, not the
> > guys). All of this should be factored in and is, I believe, the true
> > reason if indeed there is a "wage gap".
>
> None of which is relevant.
You wish, but wishing doesn't make it so.
> You need to learn how to read what you're responding to. First
> of all the figures were for YEAR ROUND FULL TIME. So, what's up with
> the comment concerning "hours worked"?
What's up is that "year round full time" does not mean
"everybody worked the same number of hours". What it does
mean is that "everybody worked at least 35 hours a week".
So if you don't account for actual hours worked, you aren't
comparing "equal work".
Alfred Einstead
> > current generation even in the aggregate]
> None of this takes into account other factors - type of work done,
So, let's see what you're arguing here.
You're saying that the fact the analysis which shows there ALREADY IS
wage parity [even in the aggregate now, for the youngest generation]
is wrong because it fails to take into account other factors
which when included demonstrate that there already is wage parity.
HELLO?! Are you just acting stupid, or are you born that way?!
Learn how to read moron.
Alfred Einstead
> The bottom line here is that figures can be made to say what is wanted
> to be said. When all factors are taken into account, (and they are *not*
> irrelevant) the so called wage gap if indeed there is one, is so small as to
> be insignificant.
Gee, let's see what you're arguing here too now.
What you're saying is that the figures -- which show that there is NO
MORE WAGE GAP [not even in the aggregate, and showing, in fact,
every sign of OVERSHOOTING parity in the generation about to follow] --
are wrong because they fail to take into account factors that show ...
um ... that there is no more wage gap.
HELLO?! Anyone home in your head?
What? Are you still acting stupid, or are you just born that way?
Learn how to FRICKIN' READ what you're responding to, asshole!
Michael Snyder
Alfred Einstead wrote in message ...
The above is pretty much unadulterated nonsense. The "regularity"
here shows that women's pay parity has steadily improved, and is
consistently better in younger cohorts. But this is still based solely
on looking at all full-time workers. As stated by Nethead8, this
ignores numerous other factors such as similar jobs, similar
qualifications, similar levels of experience etc. When you
control for these additional factors, women's pay parity gets
even closer, which was nethead's point.
Michael Snyder
Alfred Einstead wrote in message ...
>Feminism is irrelevant.
'nuff said.
Kim
The bottom line is that women and men both work for businesses.
Business owners almost always do what is in the best interests of the
company. If it is in the companies interest to pay women and men
equally they will do it. The reality is that it is very difficult to
come up with areas to perform tests since most jobs are performed by
one gender or the other. Most engineers are men. Most marketers are
women. Most nurses are women. Most Lawyers are men. Being a feminist
doesn't get me around the facts. These are not tired gender biased
opinions, they are statistical fact. Men tend to be more willing to
work overtime. Women tend to be better working with people. Men are
physically and emotionally stronger, women are more patient.
Different. Different. Different. Obviously you cannot come up with a
simple rationale behind how you do cost comparisons since men and
women are so demonstrably different. So business owners will hire who
they want and pay what they want, usually in their businesses best
interests. I do not think a woman gets a worse deal because she is a
woman. I think in the cases where women get worse deals then men it is
because business owners think (often subconsciously) it is in the best
interests of the business to hire more men or to pay men more.
Women will only achieve pay-equality when they convince business
owners that their productivity matches that of a man. In my
experience, in most jobs that hasn't happened yet, and will not happen
for some time to come.
-Kim
Magic Nose Goblin
> Here we go comparing apples to oranges again.
>
> The bottom line is that women and men both work for businesses.
> Business owners almost always do what is in the best interests of the
> company. If it is in the companies interest to pay women and men
> equally they will do it. The reality is that it is very difficult to
> come up with areas to perform tests since most jobs are performed by
> one gender or the other. Most engineers are men. Most marketers are
> women. Most nurses are women.
Other than nursing, women gravitate towards jobs (like marketing,
HR, and receptionist), where productivity and other "what is the
business getting for their money?" questions are difficult, if
not impossible, to evaluate.
Michael Snyder
Kim wrote in message ...
>Here we go comparing apples to oranges again.
>
>The bottom line is that women and men both work for businesses.
>Business owners almost always do what is in the best interests of the
>company. If it is in the companies interest to pay women and men
>equally they will do it.
And they do.
>The reality is that it is very difficult to
>come up with areas to perform tests since most jobs are performed by
>one gender or the other. Most engineers are men. Most marketers are
>women.
Nonsense. There are plenty of doctors of both genders.
> Most nurses are women. Most Lawyers are men.
There are plenty of female lawyers.
> Being a feminist
>doesn't get me around the facts. These are not tired gender biased
>opinions, they are statistical fact.
Only by feminist definitions.
Ian
>
> The bottom line is that women and men both work for businesses.
> Business owners almost always do what is in the best interests of the
> company. If it is in the companies interest to pay women and men
> equally they will do it. The reality is that it is very difficult to
> come up with areas to perform tests since most jobs are performed by
> one gender or the other. Most engineers are men. Most marketers are
> women. Most nurses are women. Most Lawyers are men. Being a feminist
> doesn't get me around the facts. These are not tired gender biased
> opinions, they are statistical fact. Men tend to be more willing to
> work overtime. Women tend to be better working with people. Men are
Women tend to enjoy working with people.
I don't see any research where women are better, but I see from
simple observation that women enjoy it.
> physically and emotionally stronger, women are more patient.
Actually men are more patient. Testosterone causes increased ability
to concentrate for long periods.
> Different. Different. Different. Obviously you cannot come up with a
> simple rationale behind how you do cost comparisons since men and
> women are so demonstrably different. So business owners will hire who
> they want and pay what they want, usually in their businesses best
> interests. I do not think a woman gets a worse deal because she is a
> woman. I think in the cases where women get worse deals then men it is
> because business owners think (often subconsciously) it is in the best
> interests of the business to hire more men or to pay men more.
> Women will only achieve pay-equality when they convince business
> owners that their productivity matches that of a man. In my
Women will never convince business that their productivity is equal to
men, because it isn't. However, even if it was, they'd also have to
equal men in the dependability, lack of sick, attention to detail,
and "give me a payrise or I'll leave" stakes.
The odd woman beats most men, because there is a large overlap.
However that's not what feminism wants. It wants equal reward,
so its sisters don't have to depend on men.
Mark
>The wage comparison broken down by birthdate:
[...]
>Starting around 2005-2010, the youngest girls and women should be outearning
>boys and men.
A e-mail sent to an associate concerning the new revelation regarding
the so-called "75 cents/dollar" issue:
Yes, it's a common cite by organizations, like NOW. What's new about the
analysis I did is that it reveals that the phenomenon is almost entirely
generational, that for a given generation it persists across time, and
that for the youngest generation there simply is no more disparity anymore.
Others have tried to explain away the "disparity" by coming up with all
sorts of qualifiers about occupational choice, lifestyle choices, etc.
I've proven that you don't need to account for any of that, because even
in the aggregate, you still find that parity has already arisen and that
(if anything) these other factors are, themselves, accounted for by which
time and culture you were born and raised in and so are therefore already
subsumed by the variable "birth year".
That's new, and is a shell shocker -- even more that the trend shows all
the signs of overshooting parity in the youngest generation coming up in
the middle and later part of the decade.
This is not unlike the situation in the early 1990's when organizations
like AAUW were busy pushing the notion in the public eye that girls were
being disadvantaged in schools & colleges -- all in the midst of a
century-long historic overturning that had already crossed the 50-50 level
in colleges 10 years before. When the media caught on in the late 1990's
and finally started reporting on the truth of the matter (that it's
actually boys who are at the disadvantage, not girls) this created serious
waves that 4 years later have yet to subside. Much of the older point of
view is still ingrained in the policies of the Department of Education,
and in many colleges and schools throughout the US, many of which still
operate on the mistaken perception that girls are a disadvantaged minority.
Lee
It seems to me that he is arguing that parity exists in aggregate for
many groups, excluding factors that would presumably increase parity.
IOW this quick and dirty analysis shows large scale parity without
adjusting for other factors that would show even greater parity if
included.
Thus earnings differences are likely even less than those posted in
this thread, and even more support for his POV that the earnings 'gap'
is crock is provided.
L