Daughter of Shoa Survivors Offers Precious Advice, Is Maligned

[Yisroel Markov]

I admit that the "survivors' daughter" is a hook, and plead the low
traffic on this NG as an excuse to post this article on sexual
politics. I find the analysis to be very, very good.
----------------------------------------------------

This is Susan Patton. In 1973 she was admitted to Princeton University
as part of only the fifth coeducational class in the school's history.
It took some bravery for the young Miss Patton to go to Princeton, for
she was not a legacy and was anything but a daughter of privilege. As
she explained in a 2006 article for Princeton Alumni Weekly, her
mother was a survivor of Auschwitz, a German death camp in Poland; her
father, of Bergen-Belsen, a concentration camp in Germany. After the
war they settled in the Bronx.

The Pattons' Old World preconceptions led them to disapprove of
Susan's educational aspirations:

'I would be the first woman in my family to attend college.
The necessity of my continued education eluded my mother and father.
My leaving their home before marriage was an utter disgrace to them...
They saw no honor in my admission to such a prestigious institution,
and they were confident that I should be investing myself in other
things... They were adamant that a young girl's place is in her
parents' home, until she is in her husband's home... My parents
couldn't understand why at 18 years old, I didn't direct my efforts
towards finding a mate... They wanted nothing to do with my college
application and refused to sign the required financial documentation.'

Susan was only 17 when she applied for admission: "For many years,
filing my application to Princeton as an emancipated minor made me
feel strong and independent."

After graduation, she eventually married and bore two sons, both of
whom also went to Princeton. On Friday this feminist pioneer found
herself transformed into a feminist hate object after the Daily
Princetonian student newspaper published her letter to the editor. The
paper's website has been overwhelmed by traffic, so with Patton's
permission we're reprinting the letter in full:

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887324020504578394791283850654.html
--
Yisroel "Godwrestler Warriorson" Markov - Boston, MA Member
www.reason.com -- for a sober analysis of the world DNRC
--------------------------------------------------------------------
"Judge, and be prepared to be judged" -- Ayn Rand

[Shelly]

On 4/3/2013 1:53 PM, Yisroel Markov wrote:
> I admit that the "survivors' daughter" is a hook, and plead the low
> traffic on this NG as an excuse to post this article on sexual
> politics. I find the analysis to be very, very good.
> ----------------------------------------------------
>

> http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887324020504578394791283850654.html
>

It is surprising that the Princeton women who attacked her didn't have
the intellectual level to understand what she was actually saying.

--
Shelly

[cindys]

> http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000142412788732402050457839479128385...
> --
> Yisroel "Godwrestler Warriorson" Markov - Boston, MA       Memberwww.reason.com-- for a sober analysis of the world         DNRC

> --------------------------------------------------------------------
> "Judge, and be prepared to be judged" -- Ayn Rand

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Wow. I didn't read the entire article, but I read most of it. The
advice that she is dishing out was spoofed in a 1970s book entitled
_How to be a Jewish American Princess_. The author of the book was
satirically advising [Jewish] women to go to college to obtain their
"M.R.S." degree (although the statement could as easily have been made
about any ethnic group), and that if they failed in that endeavor as
an undergrad, there was always grad school.

I will say that I found her advice offensive because it promotes
sexist stereotypes of women that we had hoped went the way of June
Cleaver's apron and pearls. I would hope women are going to college
to be educated and prepare themselves for a career. That said, I think
it's kind of obvious that both men and women have an easier time
meeting potential partners on a college campus than in the working
world (where looking for a partner often means dating a co-worker,
going to bars, or using a dating service).

On a typical college campus, there are hundreds or thousands of young,
mostly unmarried students (both men and women), so maybe she should be
advising both men and women to look for partners as undergrads.

I understand that she is also saying that Princeton women are the
creme de la creme of intelligence, and that only a man on the level of
a Princeton student/graduate is going to be interested in a Princeton
woman because all of the other men in the world are less intelligent
and will find Princeton women threatening. Please.

And yeah, I get it that men frequently want younger women. Nothing
burns my tush more than when I hear a divorced middle-aged guy with
grown children is looking for a second wife in her 20s or 30s because
he "wants to start a new family." And while I'm sure this attitude can
also be seen to some degree in the secular world, if you ever look at
a frum dating site, it is commonplace. You will rarely find a frum
middle-aged guy saying that he is looking for a woman his own age.
That said, it cracks me up that these 50-year-old guys think 25-year-
old women are going to be clamoring to be with them to help them be
fruitful and multiply.

FTR, I am 5 years older than my husband :-)
Best regards,
---Cindy S.

[Giorgies E Kepipesiom]

On Apr 3, 1:53 pm, Yisroel Markov <ey.mar...@MUNGiname.com> wrote:

> I admit that the "survivors' daughter" is a hook, and plead the low
> traffic on this NG as an excuse to post this article on sexual
> politics. I find the analysis to be very, very good.
> ----------------------------------------------------
>

I agree. But beyond the entirely irrelevant fact that her parents were
survivors, I fail to see any specifically Jewish content here at all.
What am I missing?

GEK

[Yisroel Markov]

I don't think it's the intellectual level. What do you make of Cindy's
reaction?

[David Makowsky]

On Wednesday, April 3, 2013 4:48:51 PM UTC-5, cindys wrote:

[ Snip ]

> I understand that she is also saying that Princeton women are the
> creme de la creme of intelligence, and that only a man on the level of
> a Princeton student/graduate is going to be interested in a Princeton
> woman because all of the other men in the world are less intelligent
> and will find Princeton women threatening. Please.

I had always assumed the problem was the other way around. Perhaps I am incorrect, but I have always (even before reading the article) thought that very intelligent women did not want to "marry down" in intelligence. Was my assumption incorrect?

> And yeah, I get it that men frequently want younger women. Nothing
> burns my tush more than when I hear a divorced middle-aged guy with
> grown children is looking for a second wife in her 20s or 30s because
> he "wants to start a new family." And while I'm sure this attitude can
> also be seen to some degree in the secular world, if you ever look at
> a frum dating site, it is commonplace.

I think these men are fantasizing (whether they realize it or not).

> You will rarely find a frum
> middle-aged guy saying that he is looking for a woman his own age.

I am going through a divorce (I just turned 51) and I have not tried out the dating Services yet. Due to my "baggage" (I have a lot more then most divorced men) I have resigned myself to the fact that I will marry on older woman. However I actually know a couple of older women who are at least as attractive as a lot women half their age.

At any rate I am more interested with how we will relate and interact with each other then how my friends respond to how attractive she is. After 20+ years of an unhappy marriage I will gladly take a 500 lb woman who looks like she takes a razor blade to her face every day if I can have a chance at a happy marriage.

> That said, it cracks me up that these 50-year-old guys think 25-year-
> old women are going to be clamoring to be with them to help them be
> fruitful and multiply.

I have known a about a a couple of these with a 15 year difference (In both cases they were Jewish but not religious). However (and I could be wrong) I believe the women married the money (the guys were very wealthy) and that there were going to be affairs.

[Shelly]

On 4/4/2013 10:40 AM, Yisroel Markov wrote:
> On Wed, 3 Apr 2013 20:51:42 +0000 (UTC), Shelly
> <shel...@thevillages.net> said:
>
>> On 4/3/2013 1:53 PM, Yisroel Markov wrote:
>>> I admit that the "survivors' daughter" is a hook, and plead the low
>>> traffic on this NG as an excuse to post this article on sexual
>>> politics. I find the analysis to be very, very good.
>>> ----------------------------------------------------
>>>
>>> http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887324020504578394791283850654.html
>>>
>>
>> It is surprising that the Princeton women who attacked her didn't have
>> the intellectual level to understand what she was actually saying.
>
> I don't think it's the intellectual level. What do you make of Cindy's
> reaction?

I'm a little surprised. While we both support the feminist cause of
equality of opportunity, I thought she was more pragmatic and would see
that the woman was talking about reality. She never said anything about
NOT going for a career. What she said, essentially was, that *IF* a
Princeton woman wanted a husband at some time, and to raise children in
a husband-wife situation, then the best marriage pool available for her
was while she was an undergraduate at Princeton. After that the pool
thins markedly for a "desirable" choice. What the woman said made
eminent sense and I was surprised that Cindy, while seeing that point,
reacted negatively. Frankly, I thought the woman made eminent sense.

--
Shelly

[Yisroel Markov]

And Susan Patton would emphatically agree. I find your reaction
surprising, but since it's in line with the reactions described in the
article, this might be a male/female thing. Did you read the analysis?
"Patton, after all, isn't telling girls to abjure college. Far from
it. She is advising young women already in college to think seriously
about their sexual and romantic choices, and to take advantage of the
simultaneity of their own peak nubility and their presence among an
abundance of suitable mates such as they are all but certain never to
encounter again. Contrary to her detractors' caricature, she is not
claiming that marriage is a now-or-never proposition for Princeton
women, only that now is far more opportune than later is likely ever
to be. [...] By and large her detractors do not claim that what she
says is untrue, only that it is "sexist." [...] If so, Mother Nature
is sexist."

And after more analysis, here's the big point, directly related to
what you say later:

"That is the paradox of male aging: The older you get, the younger the
pool of available women becomes. All of which is to say that because
of the biological differences between the sexes, the
play-now-marry-later strategy is as perfectly suited for high-status
men as it is dysfunctional for women."

It's part of a point that's been made before: however individually
liberating it was, the sexual revolution benefited men more than women
in the short term, and harmed both in the long term.

>That said, I think
>it's kind of obvious that both men and women have an easier time
>meeting potential partners on a college campus than in the working
>world (where looking for a partner often means dating a co-worker,
>going to bars, or using a dating service).

It's obvious, but Ms. Patton's point is that young women should take
more advantage of it than they are in a long-term manner (as opposed
to casual hook-ups, I guess).

>On a typical college campus, there are hundreds or thousands of young,
>mostly unmarried students (both men and women), so maybe she should be
>advising both men and women to look for partners as undergrads.

She probably is, but the letter was addressed specifically to women.

>I understand that she is also saying that Princeton women are the
>creme de la creme of intelligence, and that only a man on the level of
>a Princeton student/graduate is going to be interested in a Princeton
>woman because all of the other men in the world are less intelligent
>and will find Princeton women threatening. Please.

That is not, IMHO, a correct understanding. She's saying that about
women, not men. Consider: "Men regularly marry women who are younger,
less intelligent, less educated. It's amazing how forgiving men can be
about a woman's lack of erudition, if she is exceptionally pretty.
Smart women can't (shouldn't) marry men who aren't at least their
intellectual equal."

>And yeah, I get it that men frequently want younger women. Nothing
>burns my tush more than when I hear a divorced middle-aged guy with
>grown children is looking for a second wife in her 20s or 30s because
>he "wants to start a new family."

[shrug] Biologically, this is totally normal. In fact, it's a sound
reproductive strategy.

>And while I'm sure this attitude can
>also be seen to some degree in the secular world, if you ever look at
>a frum dating site, it is commonplace. You will rarely find a frum
>middle-aged guy saying that he is looking for a woman his own age.
>That said, it cracks me up that these 50-year-old guys think 25-year-
>old women are going to be clamoring to be with them to help them be
>fruitful and multiply.

Look at it this way: by thinking so (with real-world justification, it
would seem), these frum guys are unwittingly validating evolution
theory, since, as mentioned, such pairings are a very good
reproductive strategy for both sexes.

>FTR, I am 5 years older than my husband :-)

--
Yisroel "Godwrestler Warriorson" Markov - Boston, MA Member

www.reason.com -- for a sober analysis of the world DNRC

[cindys]

On Apr 4, 12:18 pm, Shelly <sheldo...@thevillages.net> wrote:
> On 4/4/2013 10:40 AM, Yisroel Markov wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Wed, 3 Apr 2013 20:51:42 +0000 (UTC), Shelly
> > <sheldo...@thevillages.net> said:
>
> >> On 4/3/2013 1:53 PM, Yisroel Markov wrote:
> >>> I admit that the "survivors' daughter" is a hook, and plead the low
> >>> traffic on this NG as an excuse to post this article on sexual
> >>> politics. I find the analysis to be very, very good.
> >>> ----------------------------------------------------
>

> >>>http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000142412788732402050457839479128385...

>
> >> It is surprising that the Princeton women who attacked her didn't have
> >> the intellectual level to understand what she was actually saying.
>
> > I don't think it's the intellectual level. What do you make of Cindy's
> > reaction?
>
> I'm a little surprised.  While we both support the feminist cause of
> equality of opportunity, I thought she was more pragmatic and would see
> that the woman was talking about reality.  She never said anything about
> NOT going for a career.  What she said, essentially was, that *IF* a
> Princeton woman wanted a husband at some time, and to raise children in
> a husband-wife situation, then the best marriage pool available for her
> was while she was an undergraduate at Princeton.  After that the pool
> thins markedly for a "desirable" choice.  What the woman said made
> eminent sense and I was surprised that Cindy, while seeing that point,
> reacted negatively.  Frankly, I thought the woman made eminent sense.

-----
I think the reason I reacted as I did is that I still have a sour
taste in my mouth from reading _How to Be a Jewish American Princess_
(back in the 1970s) where a woman's earning a college degree was
allegedly just a smokescreen for the primary goal of earning an M.R.S.
degree (sic). (Not to mention that the potential spouse should
preferably be a doctor or a lawyer). Attitudes have thankfully
changed a lot since then. That said, I agree that there is no greater
opportunity to meet a potential spouse (for women or men) than on a
college campus.

As an aside, there is a young couple I know (both physicians) who were
married recently. I couldn't believe it when my neighbor said (in all
seriousness) that the main reason the (now) wife was interested in the
husband was because "she wanted to marry a doctor." The fact that the
wife is a doctor herself was apparently insignificant (and yes, my
neighbor meant that she wanted to marry him because a doctor is a good
catch, not because the wife was looking for someone who was her
intellectual equal and in the same profession.) I just laughed.
Best regards,
---Cindy S.

[Shelly]

I also would have laughed at your neighbor's "insightful" analysis.


--
Shelly

[Yisroel Markov]

On Thu, 4 Apr 2013 16:18:51 +0000 (UTC), Shelly

Right, and here's another woman who thinks so:
-----------------------------------
By Emily Esfahani Smith

Find a Man Today, Graduate Tomorrow

Susan Patton told young women to look for a mate in college. Liberals
went crazy. My mom said the same thing.

[...] For my entire life, my parents have pushed me to work hard and
be independent, to be capable of supporting myself emotionally and
financially. That is precisely why my mother's advice five years ago
stopped me in my tracks. If she, a strong, career-oriented feminist —
who, with my dad, sacrificed a great deal for me to go to college —
was telling me to pay more attention to my romantic life, then what
did she know that I didn't?

A lot. She knew what few, if any, feminists would tell young women
today: There is far more to happiness than career success. [...] My
mother's advice — Susan Patton's advice — may not be right for every
woman, but it was right for me. In the fall of my senior year, I
started dating a brilliant man and we're still together. If I were
unattached today, I'm not sure what I would do. The post-college
dating scene can be rough: Getting to know someone often means
shouting across a noisy bar or scrolling through Internet dating
profiles. Finding a partner in college is easier.

Mom was right.

Full article at
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887324100904578402550244371508.html

[Fred Goldstein]

I found it offensive too. And I'm a middle-aged married man. Patton's
letter made no sense at all, because it strongly implied that one should
find a mate as an undergrad and get married at the age of 22 or so. For
an educated woman, that's just ridiculous nowadays. Sure, some
modernity-defying tribal peoples, from Afghanistan to Brooklyn, marry
young, especially the women, and expect them to have lots of babies and
frankly not much more. But a woman who goes to Princeton is not that
type of person, nor are most of the men there! They probably will go on
to more education, and will begin careers that require their pretty
strong attention for a while. Marrying young does not fit.

Her advice would have made more sense if it were to go to your tenth
reunion and see who's single there.

BTW I've been reading Clive Davis' memoir. He became one of the most
important people in the music industry in the 1960s when, as a young
lawyer, he was put in charge of Columbia Records. He grew up in Crown
Heights, Brooklyn, when it was mostly non-Orthodox, and was your basic
working-class Jewish kid who happened to be good at school, so he ended
up at Harvard Law. Ob this discussion, he met an 18-year old girl,
Helen Cohen, when he was 23 and they were both camp counselors nearby in
the Poconos (I went to some camps like that as a kid in the early '60s).
They married young. They had two kids quickly and, as his law career
was taking off, they could afford to move to Lawn Guy Land. But she
hated it, wanted to go to Israel for a while, so they divorced, sharing
custody. He moved to the Upper East Side ($$) and hired a nanny to
raise the kids while he climbed the corporate ladder. That was 1960 for
you. Helen married well, but the norms of the time were really too
early, and it was bad for everyone involved.

[cindys]

On Apr 7, 5:29 am, Fred Goldstein <fg...@ionaryQRM.invalid> wrote:
snip

>
>  Sure, some
> modernity-defying tribal peoples, from Afghanistan to Brooklyn, marry
> young, especially the women, and expect them to have lots of babies and
> frankly not much more.

snip
-----
Presumably you are posting to this group because you want to
participate in conversation, but every time you post, you apparently
feel compelled to make snarky remarks about "modernity-defying tribal
peoples."

You may have had some really interesting things to say in the
remainder of your post that could have segued into a really nice
thread, but speaking for myself, every time I read one of your posts
(which invariably includes anti-Orthodox mudslinging), I just want to
put you in the killfile. Sorry to break it to you, but some of the
regulars on this group are Orthodox Jews. A person does not have to be
a charedi Jew to find these kind of remarks a big turnoff.

I'm not sure what you think you are accomplishing with your arbitrary
mud-slinging, but I don't know of any other posters to this group who
habitually incorporate rightwing Orthodox slams into every single post
just for the sake of it. This thread is about undergrads at Princeton
not Orthodox Jews.
Best regards,
---Cindy S.

[malcolm...@btinternet.com]

On Sunday, April 7, 2013 10:46:17 PM UTC+1, cindys wrote:
> On Apr 7, 5:29 am, Fred Goldstein <fg...@ionaryQRM.invalid> wrote:
>
> Presumably you are posting to this group because you want to
> participate in conversation, but every time you post, you apparently
> feel compelled to make snarky remarks about "modernity-defying tribal
> peoples."
>

It's not even accurate. One of my criticisms of the extremely observant
groups is that they are very modern, both in tone and in terms of
chronological development of customs. The phrase "ultra-orthodox" (a
silly one) wouldn't have had much meaning pre-20th century.

[Yisroel Markov]

I agree, but that's not how they view themselves, so perhaps it's
valid to call them this, on their own terms.

[Yisroel Markov]

It didn't "strongly imply," it pretty much said so.

>For an educated woman, that's just ridiculous nowadays.

Why?

>Sure, some
>modernity-defying tribal peoples, from Afghanistan to Brooklyn, marry
>young, especially the women, and expect them to have lots of babies and
>frankly not much more.

Ah, so that's why. Newsflash: in these modern times, marriage doesn't
have to mean "babies" or "lots of babies", or right away. I expect
Princeton women to know that; I wonder why you don't? Surely they're
informed enough, at least those who intend to procreate at some point.

>But a woman who goes to Princeton is not that
>type of person, nor are most of the men there! They probably will go on
>to more education, and will begin careers that require their pretty
>strong attention for a while. Marrying young does not fit.

I pity any person whose career doesn't allow for adequate attention to
a mate. (Children are another matter, but, as mentioned, these don't
have to happen right away.) On the contrary, remembering how much time
I wasted as a young man chasing girls, I'd say that early marriage is
a definite time-saver and thus a career enhancer, at least for young
men. Anecdotally, both my daughter's and my son-in-law's grades have
improved substantially once they got married (after her freshman and
his sophomore year in college).

BTW, I second Cindy's comments re: unnecessary offensiveness.

And here's what Ross Douhat wrote at the NYTimes:
-----------------------------------

[Susan Patton's] betrayal consists of being gauche enough to
acknowledge publicly a truth that everyone who�s come up through Ivy
League culture knows intuitively � that elite universities are about
connecting more than learning, that the social world matters far more
than the classroom to undergraduates, and that rather than an
escalator elevating the best and brightest from every walk of life,
the meritocracy as we know it mostly works to perpetuate the existing
upper class. [...]

The intermarriage of elite collegians is only one of these mechanisms
� but it�s an enormously important one. The outraged reaction to her
comments notwithstanding, Patton wasn�t telling Princetonians anything
they didn�t already understand. Of course Ivy League schools double as
dating services. Of course members of elites � yes, gender
egalitarians, the males as well as the females � have strong
incentives to marry one another, or at the very least find a spouse
from within the wider meritocratic circle. What better way to double
down on our pre-existing advantages? What better way to minimize, in
our descendants, the chances of the dread phenomenon known as
�regression to the mean�?

Full article at
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/04/07/opinion/sunday/douthat-the-secrets-of-princeton.html

[snip]

[Fred Goldstein]

Even if they use contraception, marriage at a young age is simply not
something well-educated Americans do nowadays. Marriage does limit
one's choices, for example in where one lives. In the pre-Friedan era,
it's true that most women married young and simply followed their
husbands around, minding house wherever hubby was relocated to. "Happy
to keep his dinner warm", as the lyrics of the wonderfully ironic Frank
Loesser song (from "How to Succeed in Business Without Really Trying)
goes. But now women who graduate elite schools want time to establish
themselves, not follow men establishing themselves. Nor would a young
Princeton man want to follow his wife instead of finding his own place.
Marriage age is closer to 30.

>> But a woman who goes to Princeton is not that
>> type of person, nor are most of the men there! They probably will go on
>> to more education, and will begin careers that require their pretty
>> strong attention for a while. Marrying young does not fit.
>
> I pity any person whose career doesn't allow for adequate attention to
> a mate. (Children are another matter, but, as mentioned, these don't
> have to happen right away.) On the contrary, remembering how much time
> I wasted as a young man chasing girls, I'd say that early marriage is
> a definite time-saver and thus a career enhancer, at least for young
> men. Anecdotally, both my daughter's and my son-in-law's grades have
> improved substantially once they got married (after her freshman and
> his sophomore year in college).

That is certainly not the norm, at least at places like Princeton. Maybe
at very religious institutions, or in some other parts of the world.
But not New Jersey. I know that when I was in college in the 1970s,
there were virtually no married students; it just wasn't done.
Universities with graduate schools did often have married student
housing, but they were sometimes older.

>
> BTW, I second Cindy's comments re: unnecessary offensiveness.

You guys take offense too easily. I was referring to tribals in general,
which includes some haredim. Not M-O. I live in a heavily M-O
neighborhood but I don't see 20-year-olds pushing twin strollers. (Of
course they couldn't afford it. This area is ridiculously too
expensive.) But in the stricter cultures, women have no choice in their
lives. While an M-O girl might go to Stern and still enter a
profession, a St. Mary hasid marries at 19 or so and is expected to have
a lot of kids, starting right away. I have read Eishes Chayil (Judy
Braun; besides her novels, she writes about Borough Park life in the
Forward) and her stuff is just so weird; it has precisely zero in common
with the Jewish community that I grew up in, but does sound a lot like
Pashtunwalla.

You don't find haredi women in this newsgroup. They're isolated.

In communities like that, places like Pakistan, Yemen, and Kiryas Joel,
half of the human potential is wasted. At least half -- even the mens'
potential is limited, but the womens' opportunity is totally closed off.
Perhaps the author of the Princeton letter did not intend to limit
Princeton women to that kind of life, but it rang that bell to me, and
many others, at least as loudly as my note rang yours and Cindy's.

To my non-O view, family norms include not cheating on your spouse, and
especially not buggering kids. And not defending those who do (
http://nechemyaweberman.com http://vatican.va ). All the rest is
commentary, so to speak. But there are said to be bars on Manhattan's
west side where haredi men from Brooklyn go to violate the eleventh
commandment (per Roth) while their wives are across the river with the
kids. Sorry, I don't go for hypocrisy. I'd rather see people marry
later when they're ready to settle down.

>
> And here's what Ross Douhat wrote at the NYTimes:
> -----------------------------------
>
> [Susan Patton's] betrayal consists of being gauche enough to

> acknowledge publicly a truth that everyone who�s come up through Ivy
> League culture knows intuitively � that elite universities are about

> connecting more than learning, that the social world matters far more
> than the classroom to undergraduates, and that rather than an
> escalator elevating the best and brightest from every walk of life,
> the meritocracy as we know it mostly works to perpetuate the existing
> upper class. [...]

The Ivies certainly are far more about connections than learning, I
agree. I agree with that paragraph. It is a shame that some companies
hire people because they have that sheepskin rather than equivalent
skills from a less-connected university. But that's about work.

> The intermarriage of elite collegians is only one of these mechanisms

> � but it�s an enormously important one. The outraged reaction to her
> comments notwithstanding, Patton wasn�t telling Princetonians anything
> they didn�t already understand. Of course Ivy League schools double as
> dating services. Of course members of elites � yes, gender
> egalitarians, the males as well as the females � have strong

> incentives to marry one another, or at the very least find a spouse
> from within the wider meritocratic circle. What better way to double
> down on our pre-existing advantages? What better way to minimize, in
> our descendants, the chances of the dread phenomenon known as

> �regression to the mean�?

Well, no. They don't need to marry each other. They're probably less
dating services than they used to be, though in that era the Ivies were
all male so the Seven Sisters were the female side of the dating pool.
Sure, double-legacy helps your kid get in, but so does single-legacy.
But we can marry more intelligently than Goldman Sachs can hire. My
wife went to an Ivy for grad school and I didn't even go to grad school,
nor attend an Ivy. So what? Our kids didn't even want to go to Ivies;
they both chose small schools where they'd be more likely to get a
better education.

[Yisroel Markov]

On Tue, 9 Apr 2013 06:23:06 +0000 (UTC), Fred Goldstein

Yes, but the question is not "what people do," but "what makes sense
to do."

>Marriage does limit
>one's choices, for example in where one lives. In the pre-Friedan era,
>it's true that most women married young and simply followed their
>husbands around, minding house wherever hubby was relocated to. "Happy
>to keep his dinner warm", as the lyrics of the wonderfully ironic Frank
>Loesser song (from "How to Succeed in Business Without Really Trying)
>goes. But now women who graduate elite schools want time to establish
>themselves, not follow men establishing themselves. Nor would a young
>Princeton man want to follow his wife instead of finding his own place.

This is a valid point. However, being so constrained may be a
worthwhile tradeoff. And most careers can be pursued in more than one
location. Hence most high-powered couples end up in the big cities
with a large opportunity set.

>Marriage age is closer to 30.
>
>>> But a woman who goes to Princeton is not that
>>> type of person, nor are most of the men there! They probably will go on
>>> to more education, and will begin careers that require their pretty
>>> strong attention for a while. Marrying young does not fit.
>>
>> I pity any person whose career doesn't allow for adequate attention to
>> a mate. (Children are another matter, but, as mentioned, these don't
>> have to happen right away.) On the contrary, remembering how much time
>> I wasted as a young man chasing girls, I'd say that early marriage is
>> a definite time-saver and thus a career enhancer, at least for young
>> men. Anecdotally, both my daughter's and my son-in-law's grades have
>> improved substantially once they got married (after her freshman and
>> his sophomore year in college).
>
>That is certainly not the norm,

Nor did I say that it was.

>at least at places like Princeton. Maybe
>at very religious institutions, or in some other parts of the world.
>But not New Jersey. I know that when I was in college in the 1970s,
>there were virtually no married students; it just wasn't done.
>Universities with graduate schools did often have married student
>housing, but they were sometimes older.

True. Now how about responding to my point about attention?

>> BTW, I second Cindy's comments re: unnecessary offensiveness.
>
>You guys take offense too easily. I was referring to tribals in general,
>which includes some haredim. Not M-O.

Why not? We're all tribal, the remains of the tribe of Yehuda, with a
sprinkling of Binyamin and Levi.

>I live in a heavily M-O
>neighborhood but I don't see 20-year-olds pushing twin strollers. (Of
>course they couldn't afford it. This area is ridiculously too
>expensive.)

Which is the cause and which is the effect? I'd say the opposite -
that they can afford to live there because they delay childbearing.

>But in the stricter cultures, women have no choice in their
>lives. While an M-O girl might go to Stern and still enter a
>profession, a St. Mary hasid marries at 19 or so and is expected to have
>a lot of kids, starting right away. I have read Eishes Chayil (Judy
>Braun; besides her novels, she writes about Borough Park life in the
>Forward) and her stuff is just so weird; it has precisely zero in common
>with the Jewish community that I grew up in, but does sound a lot like
>Pashtunwalla.
>
>You don't find haredi women in this newsgroup. They're isolated.

True, but entirely beside the point. At least my point.

>In communities like that, places like Pakistan, Yemen, and Kiryas Joel,
>half of the human potential is wasted.

Only if you assume that childrearing is a worthless activity.

>At least half -- even the mens'
>potential is limited, but the womens' opportunity is totally closed off.
> Perhaps the author of the Princeton letter did not intend to limit
>Princeton women to that kind of life,

"Perhaps"? I'm totally astounded that anyone could hear that bell.

>but it rang that bell to me, and
>many others, at least as loudly as my note rang yours and Cindy's.
>
>To my non-O view, family norms include not cheating on your spouse, and
>especially not buggering kids. And not defending those who do (
>http://nechemyaweberman.com http://vatican.va ). All the rest is
>commentary, so to speak. But there are said to be bars on Manhattan's
>west side where haredi men from Brooklyn go to violate the eleventh
>commandment (per Roth) while their wives are across the river with the
>kids. Sorry, I don't go for hypocrisy.

Entirely beside the point. See, this looks like gratuitious slams at a
group, and that's what's ringing Cindy's bell, to use your expression.

>I'd rather see people marry
>later when they're ready to settle down.

It is this readiness that is subjective and under discussion.

>> And here's what Ross Douhat wrote at the NYTimes:
>> -----------------------------------
>>
>> [Susan Patton's] betrayal consists of being gauche enough to

>> acknowledge publicly a truth that everyone who�s come up through Ivy
>> League culture knows intuitively � that elite universities are about

>> connecting more than learning, that the social world matters far more
>> than the classroom to undergraduates, and that rather than an
>> escalator elevating the best and brightest from every walk of life,
>> the meritocracy as we know it mostly works to perpetuate the existing
>> upper class. [...]
>
>The Ivies certainly are far more about connections than learning, I
>agree. I agree with that paragraph. It is a shame that some companies
>hire people because they have that sheepskin rather than equivalent
>skills from a less-connected university. But that's about work.
>
>> The intermarriage of elite collegians is only one of these mechanisms

>> � but it�s an enormously important one. The outraged reaction to her
>> comments notwithstanding, Patton wasn�t telling Princetonians anything
>> they didn�t already understand. Of course Ivy League schools double as
>> dating services. Of course members of elites � yes, gender
>> egalitarians, the males as well as the females � have strong

>> incentives to marry one another, or at the very least find a spouse
>> from within the wider meritocratic circle. What better way to double
>> down on our pre-existing advantages? What better way to minimize, in
>> our descendants, the chances of the dread phenomenon known as

>> �regression to the mean�?

>
>Well, no. They don't need to marry each other.

No, they don't need to, but that's what they increasingly do. In fact,
IIRC this "marry alike" explains 2/3 of the growth in the income gap
between rich and poor households since 1970. See Charles Murray's
"Coming Apart" for a plethora of details.

>They're probably less
>dating services than they used to be, though in that era the Ivies were
>all male so the Seven Sisters were the female side of the dating pool.
>Sure, double-legacy helps your kid get in, but so does single-legacy.
>But we can marry more intelligently than Goldman Sachs can hire. My
>wife went to an Ivy for grad school and I didn't even go to grad school,
>nor attend an Ivy. So what? Our kids didn't even want to go to Ivies;
>they both chose small schools where they'd be more likely to get a
>better education.

[David Makowsky]

FYI. Aish haTorah even has something on this.

http://www.aish.com/ci/w/Mrs-Princeton.html

[Yisroel Markov]

On Thu, 11 Apr 2013 17:19:07 +0000 (UTC), David Makowsky
<dlmak...@gmail.com> said:

>FYI. Aish haTorah even has something on this.
>
>http://www.aish.com/ci/w/Mrs-Princeton.html

It's pretty good, especially this:

"When I attended UC Berkeley in the early 1980s, there was a popular
bumper sticker around town that read, �A woman without a man is like a
fish without a bicycle.� This mean-spirited male-bashing unfortunately
grew to become socially acceptable. It also inevitably led to the
devaluing of marriage that has caused great pain to untold numbers of
women who craved marriage and family, but bought into the feminist
idea that there was no rush, take your time, build your career first.
I personally know women who learned too late that the biological clock
waits for no one. This hostility toward marriage and men is also
breathtakingly at odds with other modern imperatives, such as the need
to be sensitive and to celebrate diversity. In college, I aspired not
only for a career in journalism but also for a husband and family, but
I understood this was a goal better left implied rather than stated
overtly."

And here's another indication that Susan Patton is right, written by a
female Yale student just last month:

"We all know that college is as much about self-discovery as it is
about academia. Bring together 1,000 high-strung young adults. Add the
pungent kick-starter of alcohol, splash on some loud music, stick
these bodies together in a dark room. Stir. When I was a freshman, I
took full advantage of that scene: I certainly thought there were
plenty of fish in the college sea. Plus, all the attention was fun.
Then, like many of my friends and peers, I slowly realized that �fun�
wasn�t enough for me. �Sometime during sophomore year, her feelings
changed,� Rosin writes of Tali. �She got tired of relationships that
just faded away, �no end, no beginning.� � When I asked Tali what she
really wanted, she didn�t say anything about commitment or marriage or
a return to a more chivalrous age. �Some guy to ask me out on a date
to the frozen�yogurt place,� she said. That�s it. A $3 date.�

How sad is that? But this is the kicker:

"The Rosin narrative suggests that feminism exists most progressively
and positively when women just stop caring about having serious
relationships with men. At Yale, where success is more highly valued
than probably anything else � where ambition is a given, achievement
an expectation and hard work a mantra � participation in the hookup
culture might be a way of liberating oneself from the constraints of
the traditional boyfriend-girlfriend mumbo-jumbo. [...] But for SWUGs
like Chloe and I, that�s not quite how it pans out. Whatever
empowerment we�re supposed to be deriving from this version of the
feminist moment is looking pretty thin on the ground. Another Atlantic
piece, published just a few weeks ago, pushed back at Rosin�s
argument: �I hear young women�s mixed feelings about relationships,�
writes sociologist Leslie C. Bell. �Some young women deeply desire
meaningful relationships with men, even as they feel guilty about
those desires. � To do so feels like a betrayal of themselves, of
their education and of their achievements.�"

"Feel guilty about those desires." Holy crap, if this kind of attitude
is the result of feminist propaganda, then feminists have a lot to
answer for.

[cindys]

------
Feminists aren't the only ones who use "propaganda." I would call the
above attitude classic Aish HaTorah propaganda. Aish HaTorah is all
about prioritizing marriage and children above educational
opportunity. Would you really have expected to see anything on the
Aish HaTorah website that wasn't condemnatory of feminism and/or
didn't lend support to the frum/Aish HaTorah position/point of view?

I was recently talking to a young woman I know, an FFB from a
traditional, frum family. She's an example of someone who did use the
Susan Patton approach/wisdom (sort of).

She's 22 and holds a master's degree (but in a low-paying field with
few employment opportunities). She is unemployed, owes $50,000 in
student loans, and her husband sits in bais medrash and learns all
day. She has two children. I asked her how was she able to earn the
master's degree at such a young age?

She told me that the college she attended gave her college credit for
a bunch of her high school courses, and the college also gave her
credits for the time she spent in seminary in Israel, and she also
went to college every summer. So, I asked her what was her rush?

She said that she (and other frum women) rush through so that they can
get married young and start having babies and will be able to earn
enough money to support their husbands while they learn. Except she's
unemployed and has deferred $50,000 worth of student loans. And now
she feels she can't go for any vocational training either because she
would incur more loans coupled with the fact that she would still be
unemployed and additionally have to pay a babysitter while she's in
school.

I know she made her own bed, but I still feel sorry for her. When she
made these decisions (or they were made for her), she was barely out
of high school. Most 18 year olds can't see the big picture, and by
the time they do, it's too late. So, the frum approach is so great?
She has her marriage and her babies at 22, but what kind of future
does she have? She said, "I would gladly give back my degree, if the
school would give me back my $50,000 so I could earn a different
degree in a science field where I could actually find a job and earn
some money."
Best regards,
---Cindy S.

[W. Baker]

Yisroel Markov <ey.m...@munginame.com> wrote:
: On Thu, 11 Apr 2013 17:19:07 +0000 (UTC), David Makowsky

: <dlmak...@gmail.com> said:

: >FYI. Aish haTorah even has something on this.
: >
: >http://www.aish.com/ci/w/Mrs-Princeton.html

: It's pretty good, especially this:

: "When I attended UC Berkeley in the early 1980s, there was a popular

: bumper sticker around town that read, ?A woman without a man is like a
: fish without a bicycle.? This mean-spirited male-bashing unfortunately

: grew to become socially acceptable. It also inevitably led to the
: devaluing of marriage that has caused great pain to untold numbers of
: women who craved marriage and family, but bought into the feminist
: idea that there was no rush, take your time, build your career first.
: I personally know women who learned too late that the biological clock
: waits for no one. This hostility toward marriage and men is also
: breathtakingly at odds with other modern imperatives, such as the need
: to be sensitive and to celebrate diversity. In college, I aspired not
: only for a career in journalism but also for a husband and family, but
: I understood this was a goal better left implied rather than stated
: overtly."

: And here's another indication that Susan Patton is right, written by a
: female Yale student just last month:

: "We all know that college is as much about self-discovery as it is
: about academia. Bring together 1,000 high-strung young adults. Add the
: pungent kick-starter of alcohol, splash on some loud music, stick
: these bodies together in a dark room. Stir. When I was a freshman, I
: took full advantage of that scene: I certainly thought there were
: plenty of fish in the college sea. Plus, all the attention was fun.

: Then, like many of my friends and peers, I slowly realized that ?fun?
: wasn?t enough for me. ?Sometime during sophomore year, her feelings
: changed,? Rosin writes of Tali. ?She got tired of relationships that
: just faded away, ?no end, no beginning.? ? When I asked Tali what she
: really wanted, she didn?t say anything about commitment or marriage or
: a return to a more chivalrous age. ?Some guy to ask me out on a date
: to the frozen?yogurt place,? she said. That?s it. A $3 date.?

: How sad is that? But this is the kicker:

: "The Rosin narrative suggests that feminism exists most progressively
: and positively when women just stop caring about having serious
: relationships with men. At Yale, where success is more highly valued

: than probably anything else ? where ambition is a given, achievement
: an expectation and hard work a mantra ? participation in the hookup

: culture might be a way of liberating oneself from the constraints of
: the traditional boyfriend-girlfriend mumbo-jumbo. [...] But for SWUGs

: like Chloe and I, that?s not quite how it pans out. Whatever
: empowerment we?re supposed to be deriving from this version of the

: feminist moment is looking pretty thin on the ground. Another Atlantic

: piece, published just a few weeks ago, pushed back at Rosin?s
: argument: ?I hear young women?s mixed feelings about relationships,?
: writes sociologist Leslie C. Bell. ?Some young women deeply desire

: meaningful relationships with men, even as they feel guilty about

: those desires. ? To do so feels like a betrayal of themselves, of
: their education and of their achievements.?"

: "Feel guilty about those desires." Holy crap, if this kind of attitude

: is the result of feminist propaganda, then feminists have a lot to
: answer for.
: --
: Yisroel "Godwrestler Warriorson" Markov - Boston, MA Member
: www.reason.com -- for a sober analysis of the world DNRC
: --------------------------------------------------------------------
: "Judge, and be prepared to be judged" -- Ayn Rand

I grew up in the pre=feminist era and I saw a large number of women when I ws in
college grabbing and marrying men no where near their equals because of a fear of
graduating without that Mrs. many of htese marriages later ended in divorce as
peole grew and found themselves moving in different directions. I was not wildly
socially ept and ws no were near ready for a permanent connection at 21. I went to
work and became a High School teacher and by 27, in that day and age, considered
that I most likely would never marry as I was so old. When I started at a new
school I met the music teacher . As I ws studying voice for fun at that time we
hit is off and ate lunch ttogether everyday. I "knew" he ws married as he had
shown me pictures of ihis daughter, so I was not thinking along dating lines. when
he asked me out I was non-commital until I spok to one of the other women teacher
who told me he ws a widower. We started dating and were ehe proposed in 3 weeks
and I took a whole week to accept. we had a great marriage for 46 years until he
died. for me it was better to not jump in young as I wsnot ready.

thereis no single answer for any of this. some marry early and it is just fine,
other it is not. Waiting too long, for a womna can make having children a problem,
but that still gives you time to not have to rush into marriage.

Wendy

[Yisroel Markov]

Even when it comes from a Yale student who had probably never even
heard of Aish?

>Aish HaTorah is all
>about prioritizing marriage and children above educational
>opportunity. Would you really have expected to see anything on the
>Aish HaTorah website that wasn't condemnatory of feminism and/or
>didn't lend support to the frum/Aish HaTorah position/point of view?

How is this about my expectations of Aish, all of a sudden?

>I was recently talking to a young woman I know, an FFB from a
>traditional, frum family. She's an example of someone who did use the
>Susan Patton approach/wisdom (sort of).
>
>She's 22 and holds a master's degree (but in a low-paying field with
>few employment opportunities). She is unemployed, owes $50,000 in
>student loans, and her husband sits in bais medrash and learns all
>day. She has two children. I asked her how was she able to earn the
>master's degree at such a young age?
>
>She told me that the college she attended gave her college credit for
>a bunch of her high school courses, and the college also gave her
>credits for the time she spent in seminary in Israel, and she also
>went to college every summer. So, I asked her what was her rush?
>
>She said that she (and other frum women) rush through so that they can
>get married young and start having babies and will be able to earn
>enough money to support their husbands while they learn. Except she's
>unemployed and has deferred $50,000 worth of student loans. And now
>she feels she can't go for any vocational training either because she
>would incur more loans coupled with the fact that she would still be
>unemployed and additionally have to pay a babysitter while she's in
>school.
>
>I know she made her own bed, but I still feel sorry for her. When she
>made these decisions (or they were made for her), she was barely out
>of high school. Most 18 year olds can't see the big picture, and by
>the time they do, it's too late. So, the frum approach is so great?

It's at least much better than the alternative under question.
Especially when the husband earns an income.

>She has her marriage and her babies at 22, but what kind of future
>does she have? She said, "I would gladly give back my degree, if the
>school would give me back my $50,000 so I could earn a different
>degree in a science field where I could actually find a job and earn
>some money."

Sorry, Cindy, but this example is totally beside the point, since it's
about the job market rather than educational opportunity for women.
How is this woman different from all the other graduates with nearly
worthless degrees? (See below.)

Would your assessment change if she was earning $70K right now? You
even appear to be saying that she shouldn't have studied. Or are you
saying she shouldn't have married or had children? I'm at a loss as to
what you're trying to prove.

Separately, I am *amazed* by the apparent willingness of a large
subset of young O women to forgo most of their k'tuba entitlements and
essentially agree to do *all* the work of supporting and raising a
family, just so that their husbands can learn full-time. That, too, is
likely a result of successful propaganda.

It is not a sustainable lifestyle in the long term, of course. There
was even an article in the Mishpacha magazine a few months ago in
which the author said (paraphrasing): "When I was young, my rosh
yeshiva told me to go to kollel. I did. Now I've been there for 20
years, and the very same rosh yeshiva is demanding tuition from me for
my 10 kids. Where am I supposed to get it? He only says 'go find the
money somehow'. But even if I drop out of kollel, what am I qualified
for other than a janitorial position?"

Something will have to give, and pretty soon.

About these worthless degrees: We just hired an entry-level accounting
assistant and a receptionist here. The former has a BA in economics
and a MA in accounting, the latter a BA in history and a MA in
theology. According to the BLS, "Today, we have over 16,000 parking
lot attendants with bachelor�s degrees, not to mention over 83,000
bartenders and 115,000 janitors (see Table 1). More than 15 percent of
taxi drivers now have a four year college degree or more. Altogether,
there are, as of 2008, some 17 million college graduates in jobs that
the U.S. Department of Labor tells us require less than a college
education.)
http://centerforcollegeaffordability.org/uploads/12_Inconvenient_Truths.pdf

[cindys]

On Apr 18, 1:45 pm, Yisroel Markov <ey.mar...@MUNGiname.com> wrote:
> On Thu, 18 Apr 2013 15:14:19 +0000 (UTC), cindys

snippage

> >Feminists aren't the only ones who use "propaganda." I would call the
> >above attitude classic Aish HaTorah propaganda.
>
> Even when it comes from a Yale student who had probably never even
> heard of Aish?

Yes. Aish selectively prints what it wants to. If the woman had
written that she totally disagreed with what Susan Patton had written
and then had gone on to explain how prioritizing her education and
delaying marriage and childbearing had been to her benefit, Aish never
would have printed it.

>
> >Aish HaTorah is all
> >about prioritizing marriage and children above educational
> >opportunity. Would you really have expected to see anything on the
> >Aish HaTorah website that wasn't condemnatory of feminism and/or
> >didn't lend support to the frum/Aish HaTorah position/point of view?
>
> How is this about my expectations of Aish, all of a sudden?

Because you said that this woman's opinion was "an indication that
Susan Patton was right" rather than acknowledging that what she (this
other woman) wrote was just her opinion and not objectively true.
Another writer could just as easily have written that Susan Patton was
wrong, but we're not going to see that opinion on the Aish website
because Aish is anti-feminism and is only going to print opinions that
agree with its worldview.

Except in this case, the husband isn't earning an income.

>
> >She has her marriage and her babies at 22, but what kind of future
> >does she have?  She said, "I would gladly give back my degree, if the
> >school would give me back my $50,000 so I could earn a different
> >degree in a science field where I could actually find a job and earn
> >some money."
>
> Sorry, Cindy, but this example is totally beside the point, since it's
> about the job market rather than educational opportunity for women.
> How is this woman different from all the other graduates with nearly
> worthless degrees? (See below.)

From what she said, the impression I got was that she had felt rushed
and less selective about what degree she chose since the overriding
concern was finishing school ASAP. If she had had more time to
explore her degree/career options, she may have chosen differently.

>
> Would your assessment change if she was earning $70K right now?

Maybe yes, maybe no.

>You
> even appear to be saying that she shouldn't have studied. Or are you
> saying she shouldn't have married or had children? I'm at a loss as to
> what you're trying to prove.

What I am saying is that because she is so young and felt pressured to
finish school ASAP (in order to get married and start having
children), she was kind of just thrust into her particular degree
program and really didn't have adequate time to explore her options.
And since she ended up being unemployed and disliked her chosen career
and owed $50,000 besides, in her particular situation, I do think she
may have been better off if she hadn't gone.

>
> Separately, I am *amazed* by the apparent willingness of a large
> subset of young O women to forgo most of their k'tuba entitlements and
> essentially agree to do *all* the work of supporting and raising a
> family, just so that their husbands can learn full-time. That, too, is
> likely a result of successful propaganda.

Absolutely. Believe me, that wouldn't have been me. I think I would
have been terribly resentful if I had to work full-time while
simultaneously raising my sons while my husband just sat in yeshiva
all day and indulged himself (and yes, I know learning is a mitzvah,
but in my view this all-day learning for years on end is nothing more
than an indulgence rationalized by propaganda). Maybe I can find
someone to support me while I sit around all day studying gemara and
arguing pilpul.

>
> It is not a sustainable lifestyle in the long term, of course. There
> was even an article in the Mishpacha magazine a few months ago in
> which the author said (paraphrasing): "When I was young, my rosh
> yeshiva told me to go to kollel. I did. Now I've been there for 20
> years, and the very same rosh yeshiva is demanding tuition from me for
> my 10 kids. Where am I supposed to get it? He only says 'go find the
> money somehow'. But even if I drop out of kollel, what am I qualified
> for other than a janitorial position?"

Yup.

>
> Something will have to give, and pretty soon.

And yup.

>
> About these worthless degrees: We just hired an entry-level accounting
> assistant and a receptionist here. The former has a BA in economics
> and a MA in accounting, the latter a BA in history and a MA in
> theology. According to the BLS, "Today, we have over 16,000 parking
> lot attendants with bachelor s degrees, not to mention over 83,000
> bartenders and 115,000 janitors (see Table 1). More than 15 percent of
> taxi drivers now have a four year college degree or more. Altogether,
> there are, as of 2008, some 17 million college graduates in jobs that
> the U.S. Department of Labor tells us require less than a college

> education.)http://centerforcollegeaffordability.org/uploads/12_Inconvenient_Trut...

And I was reading an article recently (although, unfortunately, I
can't remember where) about a law firm (I think it was a law firm)
that will not hire anybody for any position, including receptionist,
who does not hold at least a four-year degree.Their rationale was that
the office atmosphere is more pleasant when the playing field is level
and the employees all have something in common. If some of the
employees lacked the four-year degree, it could breed resentment when
the other employees are talking about their college days. A big part
of what is driving this is that with unemployment being so high, when
a company has an opening, there are so many applicants, the company
can pick and choose, so why not choose "the best?"
Best regards,
---Cindy S.

[Shelly]

On 4/18/2013 2:20 PM, cindys wrote:
> A big part
> of what is driving this is that with unemployment being so high, when
> a company has an opening, there are so many applicants, the company
> can pick and choose, so why not choose "the best?"

The stupidity of this is that "the best" for lower level positions is
usually not the college graduate who will be resentful about being so
under-employed.

--
Shelly

[Yisroel Markov]

On Thu, 18 Apr 2013 16:39:39 +0000 (UTC), "W. Baker"
<wba...@panix.com> said:

[snip]

>thereis no single answer for any of this. some marry early and it is just fine,
>other it is not. Waiting too long, for a womna can make having children a problem,
>but that still gives you time to not have to rush into marriage.

Wendy, I totally agree. Which is why I oppose all one-size-fits-all
propaganda. Both the frum "you must get married at 18 and support your
husband" kind and the "you must go to college, play now, marry later"
kind.

[Yisroel Markov]

On Thu, 18 Apr 2013 18:20:26 +0000 (UTC), cindys
<cst...@rochester.rr.com> said:

>On Apr 18, 1:45�pm, Yisroel Markov <ey.mar...@MUNGiname.com> wrote:
>> On Thu, 18 Apr 2013 15:14:19 +0000 (UTC), cindys
> snippage
>
>> >Feminists aren't the only ones who use "propaganda." I would call the
>> >above attitude classic Aish HaTorah propaganda.
>>
>> Even when it comes from a Yale student who had probably never even
>> heard of Aish?
>
>Yes. Aish selectively prints what it wants to.
>
>If the woman had
>written that she totally disagreed with what Susan Patton had written
>and then had gone on to explain how prioritizing her education and
>delaying marriage and childbearing had been to her benefit, Aish never
>would have printed it.

Oh, I see now. Cindy, it wasn't Aish that brought in the Yale article,
but me.

But why does it matter who cited it? Why not address its substance?

>> >Aish HaTorah is all
>> >about prioritizing marriage and children above educational
>> >opportunity. Would you really have expected to see anything on the
>> >Aish HaTorah website that wasn't condemnatory of feminism and/or
>> >didn't lend support to the frum/Aish HaTorah position/point of view?
>>
>> How is this about my expectations of Aish, all of a sudden?
>
>Because you said that this woman's opinion was "an indication that
>Susan Patton was right" rather than acknowledging that what she (this
>other woman) wrote was just her opinion and not objectively true.

Cindy, to me the expression "an indication that Susan Patton was
right" conveys an opinion. And I cited an *opinion piece*, for crying
out loud. How can anything be "objectively true" about a human being's
state of mind, anyway?

[snip]

>> >She has her marriage and her babies at 22, but what kind of future
>> >does she have? �She said, "I would gladly give back my degree, if the
>> >school would give me back my $50,000 so I could earn a different
>> >degree in a science field where I could actually find a job and earn
>> >some money."
>>
>> Sorry, Cindy, but this example is totally beside the point, since it's
>> about the job market rather than educational opportunity for women.
>> How is this woman different from all the other graduates with nearly
>> worthless degrees? (See below.)
>
>From what she said, the impression I got was that she had felt rushed
>and less selective about what degree she chose since the overriding
>concern was finishing school ASAP. If she had had more time to
>explore her degree/career options, she may have chosen differently.

It is about pressure, then. I deplore that wherever it comes from. My
point in citing the Yale student's piece is that college women are
feeling pressure, too, and apparently it burns many of them out.

>> Would your assessment change if she was earning $70K right now?
>
>Maybe yes, maybe no.
>
>
>>You
>> even appear to be saying that she shouldn't have studied. Or are you
>> saying she shouldn't have married or had children? I'm at a loss as to
>> what you're trying to prove.
>
>What I am saying is that because she is so young and felt pressured to
>finish school ASAP (in order to get married and start having
>children), she was kind of just thrust into her particular degree
>program and really didn't have adequate time to explore her options.
>And since she ended up being unemployed and disliked her chosen career
>and owed $50,000 besides, in her particular situation, I do think she
>may have been better off if she hadn't gone.

Gotcha.

[snip]

>> About these worthless degrees: We just hired an entry-level accounting
>> assistant and a receptionist here. The former has a BA in economics
>> and a MA in accounting, the latter a BA in history and a MA in
>> theology. According to the BLS, "Today, we have over 16,000 parking
>> lot attendants with bachelor s degrees, not to mention over 83,000
>> bartenders and 115,000 janitors (see Table 1). More than 15 percent of
>> taxi drivers now have a four year college degree or more. Altogether,
>> there are, as of 2008, some 17 million college graduates in jobs that
>> the U.S. Department of Labor tells us require less than a college
>> education.)http://centerforcollegeaffordability.org/uploads/12_Inconvenient_Trut...
>
>And I was reading an article recently (although, unfortunately, I
>can't remember where) about a law firm (I think it was a law firm)
>that will not hire anybody for any position, including receptionist,
>who does not hold at least a four-year degree.Their rationale was that
>the office atmosphere is more pleasant when the playing field is level
>and the employees all have something in common. If some of the
>employees lacked the four-year degree, it could breed resentment when
>the other employees are talking about their college days. A big part
>of what is driving this is that with unemployment being so high, when
>a company has an opening, there are so many applicants, the company
>can pick and choose, so why not choose "the best?"

[nod] That's one of the points made in the paper I cited: that the
abundance of college graduates allows employers to be extra-picky, but
- emphatically - not at their own expense.

[Yisroel Markov]

On Thu, 18 Apr 2013 20:38:48 +0000 (UTC), Yisroel Markov
<ey.m...@MUNGiname.com> said:

>On Thu, 18 Apr 2013 18:20:26 +0000 (UTC), cindys
><cst...@rochester.rr.com> said:
>
>>On Apr 18, 1:45 pm, Yisroel Markov <ey.mar...@MUNGiname.com> wrote:
>>> On Thu, 18 Apr 2013 15:14:19 +0000 (UTC), cindys
>> snippage
>>
>>> >Feminists aren't the only ones who use "propaganda." I would call the
>>> >above attitude classic Aish HaTorah propaganda.
>>>
>>> Even when it comes from a Yale student who had probably never even
>>> heard of Aish?
>>
>>Yes. Aish selectively prints what it wants to.
>>
>>If the woman had
>>written that she totally disagreed with what Susan Patton had written
>>and then had gone on to explain how prioritizing her education and
>>delaying marriage and childbearing had been to her benefit, Aish never
>>would have printed it.
>
>Oh, I see now. Cindy, it wasn't Aish that brought in the Yale article,
>but me.

And the confusion is my fault because I forgot to include the link.
Here it is. It's a longish read, but quite interesting.

http://yaledailynews.com/weekend/2013/03/29/swugnation/

[Susan S]

In soc.culture.jewish.moderated I read this message from Yisroel Markov
<ey.m...@MUNGiname.com>:

[snip]

>"The Rosin narrative suggests that feminism exists most progressively
>and positively when women just stop caring about having serious
>relationships with men. At Yale, where success is more highly valued
>than probably anything else — where ambition is a given, achievement
>an expectation and hard work a mantra — participation in the hookup
>culture might be a way of liberating oneself from the constraints of
>the traditional boyfriend-girlfriend mumbo-jumbo. [...] But for SWUGs
>like Chloe and I, that’s not quite how it pans out. Whatever
>empowerment we’re supposed to be deriving from this version of the
>feminist moment is looking pretty thin on the ground. Another Atlantic
>piece, published just a few weeks ago, pushed back at Rosin’s
>argument: “I hear young women’s mixed feelings about relationships,”
>writes sociologist Leslie C. Bell. “Some young women deeply desire
>meaningful relationships with men, even as they feel guilty about
>those desires. … To do so feels like a betrayal of themselves, of
>their education and of their achievements.”"
>
>"Feel guilty about those desires." Holy crap, if this kind of attitude
>is the result of feminist propaganda, then feminists have a lot to
>answer for.

What do feminists have to answer for? Women's right to vote, to own
property, to have custody of their children in divorce, to have access
to contraception and abortion, to be protected by laws against domestic
violence, to walk freely without bound feet, to strive for equal pay for
equal work, to earn a university education and work as university
professors: I could go on for many paragraphs.

A woman needs a man like a fish needs a bicycle means that women are
humans that do not need men to be complete. That does not mean that
women who are inclined to have heterosexual relationships must reject
them or feel guilty, just that such partnerships are not necessary for
a fulfilling life.

Susan Silberstein

[David Makowsky]

On Sunday, May 5, 2013 6:21:34 AM UTC-5, Susan S wrote:

[ Snip ]

> What do feminists have to answer for? Women's right to vote, to own
> property

Huh? These problems were done away with ages ago and I believe the same could be said for having to answer for them.

> to have custody of their children in divorce

Huh? What feminists have to answer for the the almost exclusive right for women to have custody.

> to have access
> to contraception and abortion

Contraception maybe, but given the fact that NO ONE (my Mother included) had the right to abort me, and I suspect there are others that feel that way about themselves, there is nothing to answer for with respect to abortion because there can be no answer except under life threatening circumstances (Which is not the same as saying "health" in almost all cases).

> to be protected by laws against domestic
> violence, to walk freely without bound feet,

Just whom would make you answer for that?

> to strive for equal pay for
> equal work,

> to earn a university education and work as university
> professors: I could go on for many paragraphs.

> A woman needs a man like a fish needs a bicycle means that women are
> humans that do not need men to be complete. That does not mean that
> women who are inclined to have heterosexual relationships must reject
> them or feel guilty, just that such partnerships are not necessary for
> a fulfilling life.

That would all depend on what your meaning of "fulfilling" is. In my opinion Western Culture has survived and achieved greatness because we followed certain traditions and I personally believe that what Susan believes is feminism may eventually lead to a backlash that will result in us all becoming what is now the case in many backward Muslim countries.

[cindys]

-----
What traditions are you talking about? The traditions of women not
having a right to vote or own property or have access to
contraceptives or be legally protected from domestic violence? And
because of these traditions, we achieved greatness?

You said that Susan's definition of feminism above was going to lead
to a backlash.
Susan defined feminism above (at least in part) as: A woman's right to

vote, to own property, to have custody of their children in divorce,
to have access to contraception and abortion, to be protected by law

against domestic violence and having bound feet. And above, you
responded that women in Western culture having the rights outlined
above, i.e., "what Susan defines as feminism" is going to lead to a
backlash that will result in our becoming like backward Muslim
countries? What???
Best regards,
---Cindy S.

[Yisroel Markov]

Did you notice the "if" above? That's what. But perhaps this
regrettable attitude is not the result of feminist propaganda?

>Women's right to vote, to own
>property, to have custody of their children in divorce, to have access
>to contraception and abortion, to be protected by laws against domestic
>violence, to walk freely without bound feet, to strive for equal pay for
>equal work, to earn a university education and work as university
>professors: I could go on for many paragraphs.

And it would be both true and irrelevant to the question I've asked.

>A woman needs a man like a fish needs a bicycle means that women are
>humans that do not need men to be complete. That does not mean that
>women who are inclined to have heterosexual relationships must reject
>them or feel guilty, just that such partnerships are not necessary for
>a fulfilling life.

Is that an assertion of fact?

To rephrase my question somewhat: "Some young women deeply desire

meaningful relationships with men, even as they feel guilty about

those desires." Why do they feel guilty? Who's to blame for that?

[David Makowsky]

> What traditions are you talking about? The traditions of women not
> having a right to vote or own property or have access to
> contraceptives or be legally protected from domestic violence? And
> because of these traditions, we achieved greatness?

Anything that provides incentives in general for women to work and not stay home and raise children (There are obvious exceptions such as where the women needs to work, etc.), the whole bicycle fish thing, and the general attitude behind them.

I obviously am not referring to those laws protecting women from abuse and violence (You Don't need to be a feminist to support those). It wasn't by accident that woman traditionally raised children. In fact I believe that could be considered Darwinian.

> You said that Susan's definition of feminism above was going to lead
> to a backlash.
> Susan defined feminism above (at least in part) as: A woman's right to
> vote, to own property, to have custody of their children in divorce,
> to have access to contraception and abortion, to be protected by law
> against domestic violence and having bound feet. And above, you
> responded that women in Western culture having the rights outlined
> above, i.e., "what Susan defines as feminism" is going to lead to a
> backlash that will result in our becoming like backward Muslim
> countries? What???

I happen to believe the disintegration of the traditional family will lead to a situation where either society will be completely destroyed or things will have gotten so bad that Puritanical forces will be allowed to take over. Obviously this will not happen overnight but I cannot see it not happening.

Now to some extent I did imply certain things which Susan did not admit to, and perhaps I should not have done that. I did that based on what I perceive to be the attitude behind some of what Susan said.

I think that my posts on this will lead to about a zillion retaliatory flames so I will probably not respond just to avoid all the time needed to do so.

[cindys]

-----
I agree. We already had a lengthy discussion about this very topic a
few months ago. And all I can say is that I am so glad that I grew up
in the latter part of the 20th century where I was able to go to
college, earn my degrees, have a career and not be forced to be a stay-
at-home mother. For me personally, nothing would have been more
miserable than being forced to stay home and raise large numbers of
children. I actually feel ill just thinking about it. It's wonderful
for women who want to do that and enjoy doing that, but I am so happy
that I had other choices.
Best regards,
---Cindy S.

[David Makowsky]

On Monday, May 6, 2013 7:53:31 PM UTC-5, cindys wrote:

[ Snip ]

> I agree. We already had a lengthy discussion about this very topic a
> few months ago. And all I can say is that I am so glad that I grew up
> in the latter part of the 20th century where I was able to go to
> college, earn my degrees, have a career and not be forced to be a stay-
> at-home mother. For me personally, nothing would have been more
> miserable than being forced to stay home and raise large numbers of
> children. I actually feel ill just thinking about it. It's wonderful
> for women who want to do that and enjoy doing that, but I am so happy
> that I had other choices.

I have absolutely no problem with that, although I do wish women would choose on their own to get married and be stay at home Moms. It is a noble calling and I believe society is better for it. However I do believe all women should advance academically as far as they can since I believe (but have absolutely no proof) they can better help their children academically by having done so.

I do have a problem with "Equal pay for equal work" between the sexes since that does not even exist within the sexes and most businesses are going to pay the least they can to make the most profit regardless of whom they hire. If publicly held corporations don't do that their board of directors can be sued by their stockholders (The lawsuit would have nothing to do with discrimination, it would be based on the reduction of shareholder value).

I also have a problem with incentivizing women to enter the workforce. I actually thought the misnamed "marriage penalty" was a good thing for penalizing the second job.

As it is the tables are turned. I remember seeing a 60 minutes segment on how University admissions, especially at the best Universities, now favor women. I could cite other examples.

The above having been said, I am also shocked I have not yet been royally flamed ...

[cindys]

On May 7, 9:31 am, David Makowsky <dlmakow...@gmail.com> wrote:
snip

>
> I do have a problem with "Equal pay for equal work" between the sexes since that does not even exist within the sexes and most businesses are going to pay the least they can to make the most profit regardless of whom they hire.

snip
------
The reason for "equal pay for equal work" is that in days gone by,
companies could and would pay women less than men for doing the same
job with the excuse that men were the main breadwinners, so they
needed more money, but for women, their husbands were supporting them,
and so their job was just a second income, and they didn't really need
the money.

"Equal pay for equal work" means that a woman cannot be paid less for
doing the same job as a man just because she is a woman.
Best regards,
---Cindy S.

[David Makowsky]

On Tuesday, May 7, 2013 10:27:57 AM UTC-5, cindys wrote:

> On May 7, 9:31 am, David Makowsky <dlmakow...@gmail.com> wrote:

> > I do have a problem with "Equal pay for equal work" between the sexes since > > that does not even exist within the sexes and most businesses are going to
> > pay the least they can to make the most profit regardless of whom they hire.

> The reason for "equal pay for equal work" is that in days gone by,
> companies could and would pay women less than men for doing the same
> job with the excuse that men were the main breadwinners, so they
> needed more money, but for women, their husbands were supporting them,
> and so their job was just a second income, and they didn't really need
> the money.

> "Equal pay for equal work" means that a woman cannot be paid less for
> doing the same job as a man just because she is a woman.

I know what it means. ANY economist will tell you that such a system, in the long term is only possible under 2 scenarios:

1) Where the people running the business don't care about maximizing profits. As I mentioned previously that would never happen in a public corporation because the board of directors would be sued individually (They would personally be liable, the corporation would not have to pay) for loss of shareholder value.

2) There was collusion between businesses (And this is illegal for reasons having nothing to do with discrimination).

[JJ]

"David Makowsky" <dlmak...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:fc1f21d8-56a7-4dfd...@googlegroups.com...

*****************************************************

Well, according to Federal law, it is permissible to sue the corporation and
WIN if the woman can show that she was paid less than a man for the same
work. Heard of the Lily Ledbetter law? It was the first law Obama signed.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lily_Ledbetter_Fair_Pay_Act

It doesn't solve all the problems, but it permits lawsuits for equal pay,
and I firmly believe that a Fair Pay act which will make it illegal to pay
women less will eventually come to pass, as soon as the GOP troglodytes no
longer control the House.

Jay

[W. Baker]

David Makowsky <dlmak...@gmail.com> wrote:
: On Tuesday, May 7, 2013 10:27:57 AM UTC-5, cindys wrote:

So you think that it would be OK for McDonalds, say, to set a lower wage
rate for female hamburger flippers than for male hamburger flipers.
Should male truck drivers be paid more than female truck drivers on the
same route? Should male school teachers be paid more than femail
schoolteachers if they have worked the same number of years and have the
same educational background? Should female store clerks be paid less
than male store clerks doing the same job. this is where the abuses were
adn no longer are legal.

Wendy

[David Makowsky]

What you wrote may totally be true. However it does not address what I wrote.

[David Makowsky]

I never said any of that. I just happen to believe that in the long term such laws are not proper. They certainly are not necessary for public corporations. If McDonalds is a publicly held corporation (I think it is but I am not positive) then for legal reasons having nothing to do with sex discrimination they could not get away with that kind of policy. It would personally cost each member of the Board of Directors too much money out of their own (not the corporation's) pockets to permit such a policy.

In terms of non publicly held corporations, unless the people at the top care about things other than maximizing profits, in the long term it would take collusion to get away with such a policy and that is illegal. However, outside of safety issues (and a few others), I do not believe the government should intervene no matter how despicable their policies may be. Feel free to boycott the company out of existence.

At any rate the law is mostly unenforceable in a fair and just way since men get paid differently from other men and women get paid differently from other women for the same job. How the heck are you going to fairly and justly enforce such a law between sexes? Unless, or course, someone is stupid enough to do something like send an email saying let's pay her less because she is a women.

[Harry Weiss]

That is horse manure. A samll number of shareholders control many
corporations

> In terms of non publicly held corporations, unless the people at the top care about things other than maximizing profits, in the long term it would take collusion to get away with such a policy and that is illegal. However, outside of safety issues (and a few others), I do not believe the government should intervene no matter how despicable their policies may be. Feel free to boycott the company out of existence.

If it could be as common to pay women or any other group less like it was
50 years ago. In that case total wages would go down. Women and any
other group out of favor could curt.

> At any rate the law is mostly unenforceable in a fair and just way since men get paid differently from other men and women get paid differently from other women for the same job. How the heck are you going to fairly and justly enforce such a law between sexes? Unless, or course, someone is stupid enough to do something like send an email saying let's pay her less because she is a women.

Yes, EEO etc. is hard to tell in all cases, but there are obvious cases
and that is what keeps things in line.
--
Harry J. Weiss
hjw...@panix.com

[mm]

On Tue, 7 May 2013 16:58:26 +0000 (UTC), David Makowsky
<dlmak...@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Tuesday, May 7, 2013 10:27:57 AM UTC-5, cindys wrote:
>
>> On May 7, 9:31�am, David Makowsky <dlmakow...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> > I do have a problem with "Equal pay for equal work" between the sexes since > > that does not even exist within the sexes and most businesses are going to
>> > pay the least they can to make the most profit regardless of whom they hire.
>
>> The reason for "equal pay for equal work" is that in days gone by,
>> companies could and would pay women less than men for doing the same
>> job with the excuse that men were the main breadwinners, so they
>> needed more money, but for women, their husbands were supporting them,
>> and so their job was just a second income, and they didn't really need
>> the money.
>
>> "Equal pay for equal work" means that a woman cannot be paid less for
>> doing the same job as a man just because she is a woman.
>
>I know what it means. ANY economist will tell you that such a system, in the long term is only possible under 2 scenarios:

I and I think any economist can think of at least one more.

>
>1) Where the people running the business don't care about maximizing profits.

3) They care about maximizing profits but they're restricted by the
law and have to do something that doesn't permit maximizing. There
are loads of laws that prevent maximizing profits, or at least make it
illegal to do so. Laws that require payment of property taxes, income
taxes; laws that prevent buying stolen raw materials or stolen
wholesale shipments; laws that require duties on imported materials,
miminum wage laws, laws requiring Social Security payments.

> As I mentioned previously that would never happen in a public corporation because the board of directors would be sued individually (They would personally be liable, the corporation would not have to pay) for loss of shareholder value.

Somewhere along the way, I got the impression (probably because
someone said so) that corporate boards had a duty to act to maximize
profits, so I asked on the legal newsgroup. In the US, it's not
true. They can consider social goals in making policy, even if it
lessens profit. Especially if the goal's pursuit enhances the
company's reputation and might increase sales eventually, but even if
not.

Later I read that Milton Friedman believed it was immoral for a
director not to maiximize profits because he had a duty to the
shareholder. That might be where my source got the mistaken idea
about the law. But Milt's belief isnt' law of course, and the fact
that he's talking about morality is another indication that the law
doesn't require it.

So in this case, equial pay for equal work, and similar ones, the
board would not be liable. (BTW, in cases where the board is
liable, few in practice, perhaps too few), I don't think that means
the corporation is not. Just off the top of my head, in a wage suit,
I think the corporation would be liable for real damages (the
difference between what was paid and what should have been paid) and
the board members liable for some of the punitive damages. In a case,
say, where black people were paid less for the same work.)

BTW2. Equial pay for equal work by the two sexes was the law before
Pres. Obama was in office. It's just that the statute used an absurd
limitations rule. 2, maybe 3 years from the time the person was
hired, or the time of the discrepancy, not when she became aware of
the wage difference. Since the wages were kept secret, that was an
unreasonable rule. Lily Ledbetter Law changed that.

>2) There was collusion between businesses (And this is illegal for reasons having nothing to do with discrimination).

--

Meir

[David Makowsky]

On Tuesday, May 7, 2013 8:26:05 PM UTC-5, hjw...@panix.com wrote:

> David Makowsky <dlmak...@gmail.com> wrote:

[Snip ]

> > I never said any of that. I just happen to believe that in the long term
> > such laws are not proper. They certainly are not necessary for public
> > corporations. If McDonalds is a publicly held corporation (I think it is
> > but I am not positive) then for legal reasons having nothing to do with sex > > discrimination they could not get away with that kind of policy. It would
> > personally cost each member of the Board of Directors too much money out of > > their own (not the corporation's) pockets to permit such a policy.

> That is horse manure.

Only someone who does not know the law in this area (or does not care if others think that is the case) would claim what I wrote is anything other than the truth.

> A samll number of shareholders control many
> corporations

So? Without going into whether or not that is true or false, it does not in the least contradict what I wrote. Your statement and what I wrote could very easily both be true.

> > In terms of non publicly held corporations, unless the people at the top
> > care about things other than maximizing profits, in the long term it would
> > take collusion to get away with such a policy and that is illegal. However, > > outside of safety issues (and a few others), I do not believe the government > > should intervene no matter how despicable their policies may be. Feel free > > to boycott the company out of existence.

> If it could be as common to pay women or any other group less like it was
> 50 years ago. In that case total wages would go down. Women and any
> other group out of favor could curt.

I don't understand what you are claiming here. If someone wants to maximize profits, they will pay someone based on the least amount they can get away with in order to maximize profits whether or not that person is a man or a woman. If they are not out to maximize profits, and they are not a publicly held corporation (As I mentioned, in the long term, this could not happen in a publicly held corporation), I have major problems with government intervention in most (but not all) cases even if the behavior is despicable.

> > At any rate the law is mostly unenforceable in a fair and just way since men > > get paid differently from other men and women get paid differently from
> > other women for the same job. How the heck are you going to fairly and
> >justly enforce such a law between sexes? Unless, or course, someone is
> > stupid enough to do something like send an email saying let's pay her less
> > because she is a women.

> Yes, EEO etc. is hard to tell in all cases, but there are obvious cases
> and that is what keeps things in line.

As far as I understand it (and perhaps I don't) unless the people involved are stupid (i.e. my example about sending an email) I just don't see how the law can be fairly and justly enforced enough to create a deterrent for everyone else.

[David Makowsky]

That just supports maximizing profits, since all of those laws (and the penalties for not following them) must be taken into account. Here you actually agree with me.

> > As I mentioned previously that would never happen in a public corporation
> > because the board of directors would be sued individually (They would
> > personally be liable, the corporation would not have to pay) for loss of
> > shareholder value.

> Somewhere along the way, I got the impression (probably because
> someone said so) that corporate boards had a duty to act to maximize
> profits, so I asked on the legal newsgroup. In the US, it's not
> true. They can consider social goals in making policy, even if it
> lessens profit. Especially if the goal's pursuit enhances the
> company's reputation and might increase sales eventually, but even if
> not.

I am not sure who told you what, but in the US the Board of Directors each individually have a fiduciary responsibility when presented with options to chose those options that will increase the Net Present Value of the corporation and to not chose those options which will decrease it (And to stop any activities currently underway that will decrease it). Period. By the way this must be true at the time the decision was made. If a choice to do or not something eventually goes bad, that does not matter. Also many of these choices involve risks and probabilities, and Net Present Value calculations take these risks and probabilities into account.

> Later I read that Milton Friedman believed it was immoral for a
> director not to maiximize profits because he had a duty to the
> shareholder. That might be where my source got the mistaken idea
> about the law. But Milt's belief isnt' law of course, and the fact
> that he's talking about morality is another indication that the law
> doesn't require it.

Social choices made by companies are justified on the basis that they will eventually increase Net Present Value. For instance, from a purely economic perspective (as opposed to a humanitarian one), it makes no sense for pharmaceutical companies to invest money trying to cure AIDS. They will lose a bundle on this simply because third world countries with large numbers of AIDS patients will find ways to make large quantities of the drug and dispense it for free (All patents are public information). There will be such a large supply that there will be enough for anyone in the world to get them for free and there is no way the drug company will be able to make enough money on each one they sell to cover the cost (It might be possible to make a profit if some agency would agree to buy the patent from the drug company so they can dispense it for free, but I don't see that happening).

So why do the drug companies invest in AIDS research? So advocacy groups do not boycott them which would lead to a reduction in profits. The drug companies invest just enough to shut up these adovcacy groups.

> So in this case, equial pay for equal work, and similar ones, the
> board would not be liable. (BTW, in cases where the board is
> liable, few in practice, perhaps too few), I don't think that means
> the corporation is not. Just off the top of my head, in a wage suit,
> I think the corporation would be liable for real damages (the
> difference between what was paid and what should have been paid) and
> the board members liable for some of the punitive damages. In a case,
> say, where black people were paid less for the same work.)

You are totally wrong. I actually know what I am talking about here. I have had experience with it (Not in this specific example but in terms of the fiduciary responsibility of directors to increase the Net Present Value of a corporation).

[malcolm...@btinternet.com]

On Tuesday, May 7, 2013 8:30:12 PM UTC+1, W. Baker wrote:
>
> So you think that it would be OK for McDonalds, say, to set a lower wage
> rate for female hamburger flippers than for male hamburger flipers.
>

MacDonalds pays male burger flippers 7 dollars and hour and female burger
flippers five. Burger King pays all burger flippers six dollars and hour.
So what's going to happen? All the male burger flippers apply to MacDonald's
first, all the female burger flippers to Burger King. So MacDonald's pays
7 dollars and hour and Burger King six. Eventually MacDonald's is going to
go bankrupt, unless the male burger flippers are more desireable in some
way (flip more burgers, take less time off, dip their hands in the till
more often, attract in high-spending female executives who like their
burgers flipped by young men etc).

[Yisroel Markov]

On Tue, 7 May 2013 15:27:57 +0000 (UTC), cindys
<cst...@rochester.rr.com> said:

>On May 7, 9:31�am, David Makowsky <dlmakow...@gmail.com> wrote:
> snip
>>
>> I do have a problem with "Equal pay for equal work" between the sexes since that does not even exist within the sexes and most businesses are going to pay the least they can to make the most profit regardless of whom they hire.
>
>snip
>------
>The reason for "equal pay for equal work" is that in days gone by,
>companies could and would pay women less than men for doing the same
>job with the excuse that men were the main breadwinners, so they
>needed more money, but for women, their husbands were supporting them,
>and so their job was just a second income, and they didn't really need
>the money.

It's a good example of how a society's notions of fairness can change.
The above attitude was not, AFAIK, a law or any kind of official
policy. It was simply understood, culturally, that *of course* a
married man needed more money than a single one, or a woman.

Our current understanding of fairness is that compensation must
correlate with contribution, regardless of the worker's personal
circumstances. Economically, that's a much better approach -- it
allocates resources most efficiently.

>"Equal pay for equal work" means that a woman cannot be paid less for
>doing the same job as a man just because she is a woman.

If she can prove that she really is being paid less.

BTW, although such cases do occur, on the balance women are not paid
less for the same job. That was the conclusion of Christina Sommers'
research:

"The AAUW has now joined ranks with serious economists who find that
when you control for relevant differences between men and women
(occupations, college majors, length of time in workplace) the wage
gap narrows to the point of vanishing."
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/christina-hoff-sommers/wage-gap_b_2073804.html

On an intuitive level, this also makes sense: if women really can be
paid substantially less for the same work, who would want to hire men?

[topazgalaxy]

On Apr 3, 4:51 pm, Shelly <sheldo...@thevillages.net> wrote:
> On 4/3/2013 1:53 PM, Yisroel Markov wrote:
>
> > I admit that the "survivors' daughter" is a hook, and plead the low
> > traffic on this NG as an excuse to post this article on sexual
> > politics. I find the analysis to be very, very good.
> > ----------------------------------------------------
>
> >http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000142412788732402050457839479128385...
>
> It is surprising that the Princeton women who attacked her didn't have
> the intellectual level to understand what she was actually saying.
>
> --
> Shelly

The opening post's article was interesting but a bit wordy for me.
I think Patton's point(s) perhaps (IMO) made some feminists upset
because of the way she said it rather than the content of what she
said.
If, and I emphasize, if there are solid social and population studies
that indicate that well educated women really are happier marrying
well educated men rather than being single, or rather than marrying a
less educated man, then Patton could have pointed out such studies.
She could have also said 'Yes, come to an Ivy League school to better
your education and be self sufficient and please do not forget your
social life . Do not let the long hard hours of study destroy your
happiness> Balance is important." That is a lesson for men and women.

I have read somewhere that when a man marries, his life expectancy is
lengthened by several years. When a woman marries, her life
expectancy is actually shortened by several years.
If a woman with a solid college degree could lengthen her years of
life by marrying a well educated man -- if that were proven in the
studies-- then that is something Patton could have pointed out.

With all the news lately about "gay rights" her piece has also
assumed that all women on a college campus are heterosexual.

I believe her statement that "finding the right man to marry" is a
necessity may be laden with false assumptions. Personally I believe
that both men and women should be self confident (ideally) and self
sufficient and marry not out of necessity but because they choose to
be married (I believe Simone De Beauvoir expressed this in The Second
Sex). Women should ideally be independent on several levels
(emotionally, financially etc) and CHOOSE to be single or married.
Same for men. People should not be married because they HAVE TO be
married.
People who are stuck in those kinds of marriages I fear are often
very unhappy and feel trapped.


True 'women's liberation" does not mean a woman must be a single
executive with a Princeton degree who chose to adopt 3 children on her
own, raise them on her own, work two jobs,
get an abortion when she feels like it and oh-by-the-way have a
lesbian fling on the side. (I am not saying you ever said this Shelly
-- I am just expressing a kind of societal stereotype).
True liberation means CHOICE. And choice can mean that a woman
chooses to find a husband on a college campus.

[topazgalaxy]

On May 7, 9:31 am, David Makowsky <dlmakow...@gmail.com> wrote:

I am astounded that you would be opposed to the idea of 'equal pay for
equal work". What if, instead of men and women being compared at the
same job, it was let's say a Jewish person and a non Jewish person?
We have two theoretical people at the same job, let us say they make
widgets. They are paid let us say hourly. They work the same number
of hours, produce about the same number of widgets. Shouldn't they
earn the same ?

If the pay is determined on the issue of "hours", or they are
professionals who are offered an annual salary, shouldn't they be paid
the same if their work is equivalent? Or should the boss say "well, I
feel like giving my Jewish worker less" and that is OK? Not to me.

[mm]

On Wed, 8 May 2013 13:40:21 +0000 (UTC),
malcolm...@btinternet.com wrote:

>On Tuesday, May 7, 2013 8:30:12 PM UTC+1, W. Baker wrote:
>>
>> So you think that it would be OK for McDonalds, say, to set a lower wage
>> rate for female hamburger flippers than for male hamburger flipers.
>>

You should start the first sentence below,

"Assume that..."

>MacDonalds pays male burger flippers 7 dollars and hour and female burger
>flippers five. Burger King pays all burger flippers six dollars and hour.
>So what's going to happen? All the male burger flippers apply to MacDonald's
>first, all the female burger flippers to Burger King. So MacDonald's pays
>7 dollars and hour and Burger King six. Eventually MacDonald's is going to
>go bankrupt, unless the male burger flippers are more desireable in some
>way (flip more burgers, take less time off, dip their hands in the till
>more often, attract in high-spending female executives who like their
>burgers flipped by young men etc).

This advice is totally for your benefit. I won't benefit because
you didnt' fool me into thinking you knew how much McD pays or that
they have a 2 dollar difference by sex. But on other topics, you
might convince people you know wat you are talking about. If you
only talked to other Brits, maybe they would all knew what you mean,
but in the US, people start sentences like yours with "Assume that".
If you're in science, you have to write for people of many countries.
You don't want to look like a fool in your science writing, like I
think you look here.
--

Meir

[David Makowsky]

On Wednesday, May 8, 2013 3:57:07 PM UTC-5, topazgalaxy wrote:

> On May 7, 9:31 am, David Makowsky <dlmakow...@gmail.com> wrote:

> I am astounded that you would be opposed to the idea of 'equal pay for
> equal work". What if, instead of men and women being compared at the
> same job, it was let's say a Jewish person and a non Jewish person?
> We have two theoretical people at the same job, let us say they make
> widgets. They are paid let us say hourly. They work the same number
> of hours, produce about the same number of widgets. Shouldn't they
> earn the same ?

> If the pay is determined on the issue of "hours", or they are
> professionals who are offered an annual salary, shouldn't they be paid
> the same if their work is equivalent? Or should the boss say "well, I
> feel like giving my Jewish worker less" and that is OK? Not to me.

The amount of pay anyone gets should only be based on the value of that person to the firm. Nothing else.

[Fred Goldstein]

On 5/8/2013 9:16 AM, David Makowsky wrote:
> On Tuesday, May 7, 2013 8:26:05 PM UTC-5, hjw...@panix.com wrote:
>
>> David Makowsky <dlmak...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> [Snip ]
>
>>> I never said any of that. I just happen to believe that in the
>>> long term such laws are not proper. They certainly are not
>>> necessary for public corporations. If McDonalds is a publicly
>>> held corporation (I think it is but I am not positive) then for
>>> legal reasons having nothing to do with sex > > discrimination
>>> they could not get away with that kind of policy. It would
>>> personally cost each member of the Board of Directors too much
>>> money out of > > their own (not the corporation's) pockets to
>>> permit such a policy.
>
>> That is horse manure.
>
> Only someone who does not know the law in this area (or does not care
> if others think that is the case) would claim what I wrote is
> anything other than the truth.
>

No, what you wrote is equine scat. In fact the law works the other way.
Nowadays, "shareholder activists" hold publicly-traded corporations'
fat to the fire for *not* being evil, if the law permits them to be
evil. The law in the US now puts shareholders' interests above all
else, and thus if discriminating is more profitable, a company could be
sued for not discriminating, if it were legal. Thus the law is required
to prevent evil behavior.

[mm]

On Wed, 8 May 2013 23:13:38 +0000 (UTC), David Makowsky
<dlmak...@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Wednesday, May 8, 2013 3:57:07 PM UTC-5, topazgalaxy wrote:
>
>> On May 7, 9:31�am, David Makowsky <dlmakow...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> I am astounded that you would be opposed to the idea of 'equal pay for
>> equal work". What if, instead of men and women being compared at the
>> same job, it was let's say a Jewish person and a non Jewish person?
>> We have two theoretical people at the same job, let us say they make
>> widgets. They are paid let us say hourly. They work the same number
>> of hours, produce about the same number of widgets. Shouldn't they
>> earn the same ?

Topaz screwed up the attributions here. I noticed that when I saw her
post. David didn't write the paragraph above. Topaz did, but she
wrote it just below HIS attribution line.

>
>> If the pay is determined on the issue of "hours", or they are
>> professionals who are offered an annual salary, shouldn't they be paid
>> the same if their work is equivalent? Or should the boss say "well, I
>> feel like giving my Jewish worker less" and that is OK? Not to me.

When I was looking at Topas's post, I could probably tell, with
effort, who wrote the previous paragraph, but I've forgotten what I
thought then and it's it's much harder to tell here. Was it she or
David?

>The amount of pay anyone gets should only be based on the value of that person to the firm. Nothing else.

It's pretty clear that David wrote this.

David, what if a corporation is owned by one person and the owner
wants to pay certain widows with children more?

Meir

A: Because it messes up the order in which people normally read text.
Q: Why is top-posting such a bad thing?
A: Top-posting.
Q: What is the most annoying thing on usenet and in e-mail?

>> > On Monday, May 6, 2013 7:53:31 PM UTC-5, cindys wrote:
>>
>> >
>>
>> > [ Snip ]
>>
>> >
>>
>> > > I agree. We already had a lengthy discussion about this very topic a
>>
>> > > few months ago. �And all I can say is that I am so glad that I grew up
>>
>> > > in the latter part of the 20th century where I was able to go to
>>
>> > > college, earn my degrees, have a career and not be forced to be a stay-
>>
>> > > at-home mother. For me personally, nothing would have been more
>>
>> > > miserable than being forced to stay home and raise large numbers of
>>
>> > > children. I actually feel ill just thinking about it. It's wonderful
>>
>> > > for women who want to do that and enjoy doing that, but I am so happy
>>
>> > > that I had other choices.
>>
>> >
>>
>> > I have absolutely no problem with that, although I do wish women would choose on their own to get married and be stay at home Moms. �It is a noble calling and I believe society is better for it. �However I do believe all women should advance academically as far as they can since I believe (but have absolutely no proof) they can better help their children academically by having done so.
>>
>> >
>>
>> > I do have a problem with "Equal pay for equal work" between the sexes since that does not even exist within the sexes and most businesses are going to pay the least they can to make the most profit regardless of whom they hire. �If publicly held corporations don't do that their board of directors can be sued by their stockholders (The lawsuit would have nothing to do with discrimination, it would be based on the reduction of shareholder value).
>>
>> >
>>
>> > I also have a problem with incentivizing women to enter the workforce. �I actually thought the misnamed "marriage penalty" was a good thing for penalizing the second job.
>>
>> >
>>
>> > As it is the tables are turned. �I remember seeing a 60 minutes segment on how University admissions, especially at the best Universities, now favor women. �I could cite other examples.
>>
>> >
>>
>> > The above having been said, I am also shocked I have not yet been royally flamed ...

--

Meir

[mm]

On Thu, 9 May 2013 05:07:57 +0000 (UTC), mm <mm2...@bigfoot.com>
wrote:

>
>>The amount of pay anyone gets should only be based on the value of that person to the firm. Nothing else.
>
>It's pretty clear that David wrote this.
>
>David, what if a corporation is owned by one person and the owner
>wants to pay certain widows with children more?

Sorry. I meant: What if he wants to pay widows with children more?

"Certain" was suppposed to be deleted when I added a specific group.

>Meir
>
>A: Because it messes up the order in which people normally read text.
>Q: Why is top-posting such a bad thing?
>A: Top-posting.
>Q: What is the most annoying thing on usenet and in e-mail?

--

Meir

[David Makowsky]

On Thursday, May 9, 2013 12:07:57 AM UTC-5, googy wrote:

> On Wed, 8 May 2013 23:13:38 +0000 (UTC), David Makowsky
> <dlmak...@gmail.com> wrote:

[ Snip ]

> > The amount of pay anyone gets should only be based on the value of that
> > person to the firm. Nothing else.

> David, what if a corporation is owned by one person and the owner
> wants to pay certain widows with children more?

I don't think he should do this, but I don't believe in government intervention to stop it.

That does not mean he cannot or should not do other things for them outside the books of the company.

[David Makowsky]

On Wednesday, May 8, 2013 11:59:58 PM UTC-5, Fred Goldstein wrote:

> On 5/8/2013 9:16 AM, David Makowsky wrote:

> > On Tuesday, May 7, 2013 8:26:05 PM UTC-5, hjw...@panix.com wrote:

> >> David Makowsky <dlmak...@gmail.com> wrote:

> >>> I never said any of that. I just happen to believe that in the
> >>> long term such laws are not proper. They certainly are not
> >>> necessary for public corporations. If McDonalds is a publicly
> >>> held corporation (I think it is but I am not positive) then for
> >>> legal reasons having nothing to do with sex > > discrimination
> >>> they could not get away with that kind of policy. It would
> >>> personally cost each member of the Board of Directors too much
> >>> money out of > > their own (not the corporation's) pockets to
> >>> permit such a policy.
> >> That is horse manure.

> > Only someone who does not know the law in this area (or does not care
> > if others think that is the case) would claim what I wrote is
> > anything other than the truth.

> No, what you wrote is equine scat. In fact the law works the other way.

This is pretty funny given that I actually have first hand knowledge of how this works and for a second reason which I will get to below.

> Nowadays, "shareholder activists" hold publicly-traded corporations'
> fat to the fire for *not* being evil, if the law permits them to be
> evil. The law in the US now puts shareholders' interests above all
> else, and thus if discriminating is more profitable, a company could be
> sued for not discriminating, if it were legal. Thus the law is required
> to prevent evil behavior.

I totally agree with this (The second reason I alluded to above). It is the law which makes it less profitable to be discriminatory.

[Herman Rubin]

On 2013-05-08, topazgalaxy <topaz...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On May 7, 9:31�am, David Makowsky <dlmakow...@gmail.com> wrote:

> I am astounded that you would be opposed to the idea of 'equal pay for
> equal work". What if, instead of men and women being compared at the
> same job, it was let's say a Jewish person and a non Jewish person?
> We have two theoretical people at the same job, let us say they make
> widgets. They are paid let us say hourly. They work the same number
> of hours, produce about the same number of widgets. Shouldn't they
> earn the same ?

> If the pay is determined on the issue of "hours", or they are
> professionals who are offered an annual salary, shouldn't they be paid
> the same if their work is equivalent? Or should the boss say "well, I
> feel like giving my Jewish worker less" and that is OK? Not to me.

What is equivalent work? This can be almost impossible to
determine. And the same can be said for "equivalent background".
High school diplomas and college degrees are almost meaningless,
and even the same degree from the same university might mean quite
different things for different students.







--
This address is for information only. I do not claim that these views
are those of the Statistics Department or of Purdue University.
Herman Rubin, Department of Statistics, Purdue University
hru...@stat.purdue.edu Phone: (765)494-6054 FAX: (765)494-0558

[mm]

On Thu, 9 May 2013 12:37:29 +0000 (UTC), David Makowsky

<dlmak...@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Thursday, May 9, 2013 12:07:57 AM UTC-5, googy wrote:
>
>> On Wed, 8 May 2013 23:13:38 +0000 (UTC), David Makowsky
>> <dlmak...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>[ Snip ]
>
>> > The amount of pay anyone gets should only be based on the value of that
>> > person to the firm. Nothing else.

I deleted "certain" from my line below. Should never have been there.
But I assume your answer would have been just about the same, or you
would have corrected your answer the first time I deleted "certain".

>> David, what if a corporation is owned by one person and the owner

>> wants to pay widows with children more?

>
>I don't think he should do this,

Why shouldn't he? It's his money, his to do with as he wants. And
he thinks widows with children need more money. If he's a Jew, it's
tsedaka** and he doesn't want the women to know he's giving them
tsedake. No one talks about salaries at his company, so A) he
doesn't want them to know they're getting extra, and B) he doesn't
want them to know that he is the one giving them tsedaka. C) He
knows, so on Maimonides scale, it's somewhere in the middle. But he
doesn't know how to give extra to these particular women without
violating A or B or both.

You believe in tsedaka, and that the recipient shouldn't know who the
donor is, right?

> but I don't believe in government intervention to stop it.
>
>That does not mean he cannot or should not do other things for them outside the books of the company.

**FWIW, I don't know whether or not it's fair to call it tsedaka if
the giver is not a Jew, or if the giver is a Jew who has never heard
of tsedaka in any language. But it's still a good thing. Why
shouldn't he do it?
--

Meir

[mm]

On Thu, 9 May 2013 12:37:47 +0000 (UTC), David Makowsky
<dlmak...@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Wednesday, May 8, 2013 11:59:58 PM UTC-5, Fred Goldstein wrote:
>
>> On 5/8/2013 9:16 AM, David Makowsky wrote:
>
>> > On Tuesday, May 7, 2013 8:26:05 PM UTC-5, hjw...@panix.com wrote:
>
>> >> David Makowsky <dlmak...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> >>> I never said any of that. I just happen to believe that in the
>> >>> long term such laws are not proper. They certainly are not
>> >>> necessary for public corporations. If McDonalds is a publicly
>> >>> held corporation (I think it is but I am not positive) then for
>> >>> legal reasons having nothing to do with sex > > discrimination
>> >>> they could not get away with that kind of policy. It would
>> >>> personally cost each member of the Board of Directors too much
>> >>> money out of > > their own (not the corporation's) pockets to
>> >>> permit such a policy.
>> >> That is horse manure.
>
>> > Only someone who does not know the law in this area (or does not care
>> > if others think that is the case) would claim what I wrote is
>> > anything other than the truth.
>
>> No, what you wrote is equine scat. In fact the law works the other way.
>
>This is pretty funny given that I actually have first hand knowledge of how this works

There are many variations and twists and turns in the law, and little
things can make a big difference, and I suspect that your situation
was significiantly different from the one we're discussing. Without
knowing your situation, proably including details, I can't give much
importance to your first hand knowledge.

And I guess that means you're arguing "from authority", your
authority, which iirc is a considered a logical fallacy. .

I'm referring to your claim that board members (or a corporation)
would be liable for choosing equal pay for equal work instead of
either maximizing profit or increasing Present Net Value.

>and for a second reason which I will get to below.

>> Nowadays, "shareholder activists" hold publicly-traded corporations'
>> fat to the fire for *not* being evil, if the law permits them to be
>> evil. The law in the US now puts shareholders' interests above all
>> else, and thus if discriminating is more profitable, a company could be
>> sued for not discriminating, if it were legal. Thus the law is required
>> to prevent evil behavior.
>
>I totally agree with this (The second reason I alluded to above). It is the law which makes it less profitable to be discriminatory.

--

Meir

[David Makowsky]

Nonsensical drivel. I will repeat what Iwrote above:

Only someone who does not know the law in this area (or does not care if others think that is the case) would claim what I wrote is anything other than the truth.

> And I guess that means you're arguing "from authority", your
> authority, which iirc is a considered a logical fallacy. .

Whatever ...

> I'm referring to your claim that board members (or a corporation)
> would be liable for choosing equal pay for equal work instead of
> either maximizing profit or increasing Present Net Value.

That is exactly what I was also referring to. if they don't do that a very winnable lawsuit will be filed against them personally. These lawsuits are few and far between because of the deterrent effect (recently this is largely due to steps taken by insurance companies who provide insurance against such lawsuits).

[David Makowsky]

On Thursday, May 9, 2013 1:27:14 PM UTC-5, googy wrote:

> On Thu, 9 May 2013 12:37:29 +0000 (UTC), David Makowsky
> <dlmak...@gmail.com> wrote:

> >On Thursday, May 9, 2013 12:07:57 AM UTC-5, googy wrote:

[ Snip ]

> >> David, what if a corporation is owned by one person and the owner
> >> wants to pay widows with children more?

> >I don't think he should do this,

> Why shouldn't he? It's his money, his to do with as he wants. And
> he thinks widows with children need more money. If he's a Jew, it's
> tsedaka** and he doesn't want the women to know he's giving them
> tsedake. No one talks about salaries at his company, so A) he
> doesn't want them to know they're getting extra, and B) he doesn't
> want them to know that he is the one giving them tsedaka. C) He
> knows, so on Maimonides scale, it's somewhere in the middle. But he
> doesn't know how to give extra to these particular women without
> violating A or B or both.

If you mean that he does this without it getting out that he is doing it, then by all means. I though (probably incorrectly) that it would be known he was doing this.

> You believe in tsedaka, and that the recipient shouldn't know who the
> donor is, right?

If possible, yes.

[mm]

On Thu, 9 May 2013 20:42:30 +0000 (UTC), David Makowsky

<dlmak...@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Thursday, May 9, 2013 1:27:14 PM UTC-5, googy wrote:
>
>> On Thu, 9 May 2013 12:37:29 +0000 (UTC), David Makowsky
>> <dlmak...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> >On Thursday, May 9, 2013 12:07:57 AM UTC-5, googy wrote:
>
>[ Snip ]
>
>> >> David, what if a corporation is owned by one person and the owner
>> >> wants to pay widows with children more?
>
>> >I don't think he should do this,
>
>> Why shouldn't he? It's his money, his to do with as he wants. And
>> he thinks widows with children need more money. If he's a Jew, it's
>> tsedaka** and he doesn't want the women to know he's giving them
>> tsedake. No one talks about salaries at his company, so A) he
>> doesn't want them to know they're getting extra, and B) he doesn't
>> want them to know that he is the one giving them tsedaka. C) He
>> knows, so on Maimonides scale, it's somewhere in the middle. But he
>> doesn't know how to give extra to these particular women without
>> violating A or B or both.
>
>If you mean that he does this without it getting out that he is doing it, then by all means. I though (probably incorrectly) that it would be known he was doing this.

The question was meant to mean whatever you meant when when you said "

> > The amount of pay anyone gets should only be based on the value of that
> > person to the firm. Nothing else."

--end quote--

I didnt think that had anything to do with whether it was known what
the payer was doing. In my last reply, for the sake of good Jewish
practice, I added that no one knew, and I think I made my point, that
there are times when it's okay to pay more than the employee's value
to the firm.

But let me retract that part. Not everyone observes the secrecy part
of charity, and while for some owners, it would cause jealousy and
worker unrest to have higher wages for widows with children, some
employees would not object and some owners have garnered enough trust
or have enough charisma that they could do it.. So lets's assume
it's not a violation of any law. if no one complains, why isn't it
okay?

>> You believe in tsedaka, and that the recipient shouldn't know who the
>> donor is, right?
>
>If possible, yes.
>
>> > but I don't believe in government intervention to stop it.
>>
>> >
>>
>> >That does not mean he cannot or should not do other things for them outside the books of the company.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> **FWIW, I don't know whether or not it's fair to call it tsedaka if
>>
>> the giver is not a Jew, or if the giver is a Jew who has never heard
>>
>> of tsedaka in any language. But it's still a good thing. Why
>>
>> shouldn't he do it?
>>
>> --
>>
>>
>>
>> Meir

--

Meir

[mm]

On Thu, 9 May 2013 19:03:06 +0000 (UTC), David Makowsky

I know I'm not polite to everyone, but I've been polite to you. No
need to be insutling, especially when it actually makes good sense to
doubt an argument based almost entirely on "I've seen it before and I
know".

I don't blame you if you don't want to give details on a public
newgroup, but you said that your experience was not in this specific
example, so I continue to believe the opposite. Directors are
given pretty wide lattitude when they make decisions for a company.
They don't have to look only at the short term PNV. They can look at
the long term and everything that they might think will improve long
term stability, PNV, and, (probably unquantifible) good will, and they
can do moral actions that enhance the company's reputation and might,
even it it turns out they don't, increase the PNV in the long run. I
believe Ronald McDonald House is paid for out of McDonald's profits
and, if so, that's an example**. Giving equal pay for equal work***,
is another example.

**Although I really doubt if the people who eat at McDonalds eat more
because of Ronald McDonald Houses, or that they eat so much more than
it pays for the expenses of the Houses. I suspect they lose money,
and the Board does it because they think it's a nice thing to do, but
I don't think they've been sued.

***I suppose we're talking about where it's not legally required, It
wouldn't accomplish much if were required.

> I will repeat what Iwrote above:
>
>Only someone who does not know the law in this area (or does not care if others think that is the case) would claim what I wrote is anything other than the truth.
>
>> And I guess that means you're arguing "from authority", your
>> authority, which iirc is a considered a logical fallacy. .
>
>Whatever ...
>
>> I'm referring to your claim that board members (or a corporation)
>> would be liable for choosing equal pay for equal work instead of
>> either maximizing profit or increasing Present Net Value.
>
>That is exactly what I was also referring to. if they don't do that a very winnable lawsuit will be filed against them personally. These lawsuits are few and far between because of the deterrent effect (recently this is largely due to steps taken by insurance companies who provide insurance against such lawsuits).
>

snip
--

Meir

[mm]

On Fri, 10 May 2013 06:58:32 +0000 (UTC), mm <mm2...@bigfoot.com>
wrote:

>>I said:
>>> There are many variations and twists and turns in the law, and little
>>> things can make a big difference, and I suspect that your situation
>>> was significiantly different from the one we're discussing.

I don't want to beat this horse to death, but otoh, I have given any
outside info either, only my opinion (even though it was based on
outside reading.)

So here is something:
http://parsuslaw.wordpress.com/2010/06/22/duties-of-a-corporate-director/

V. The Business Judgment Rule

The business judgment rule is a presumption that in making a business
decision the directors of a company acted on an informed basis, in
good faith and in the honest belief that the action taken was in the
best interests of the company. Where a director acts with due care,
good faith, and the honest belief that she is acting in the best
interest of the stockholder, the court will grant deference to the
substance of the decision if it can be attributed to a rational
business purpose. The reasoning behind the business judgment rule is
to acknowledge the particular skill and judgment exercised by
businessmen and women that a reviewing court may not possess. Courts
have recognized the social utility of encouraging allocation of assets
and evaluation and assumption of economic risk by those with the skill
and information to do so. As a result, courts are reluctant to
second-guess business decisions that appear to have been made in good
faith.

The business judgment rule is not a governing standard for directors.
Rather, it presents a threshold presumption that a plaintiff must
defeat in order for the court to examine the merits of an underlying
business decision. If the plaintiff cannot demonstrate that the
director breached some fiduciary duty, the court will not substitute
its own judgment and second-guess the director�s strategic decisions.
In such cases, a director will be liable only if she has been grossly
negligent in the exercise of corporate duties, or if a plaintiff can
show that the action was not taken in an honest attempt to foster the
company�s welfare.
--

Meir

[David Makowsky]

By "known" I mean the salary and benefits are on the books.

> But let me retract that part. Not everyone observes the secrecy part
> of charity, and while for some owners, it would cause jealousy and
> worker unrest to have higher wages for widows with children, some
> employees would not object and some owners have garnered enough trust
> or have enough charisma that they could do it.. So lets's assume
> it's not a violation of any law. if no one complains, why isn't it
> okay?

Are you arguing that whatever he gives her should be on the books so no one knows that part of it is Tzedakah? If not then I do not know what you mean. If so then you raise an interesting point that I have not thought of before. You could be right.

[David Makowsky]

On Friday, May 10, 2013 1:58:32 AM UTC-5, googy wrote:

> I don't blame you if you don't want to give details on a public
> newgroup, but you said that your experience was not in this specific
> example, so I continue to believe the opposite. Directors are
> given pretty wide lattitude when they make decisions for a company.
> They don't have to look only at the short term PNV. They can look at
> the long term and everything that they might think will improve long
> term stability, PNV, and, (probably unquantifible) good will, and they
> can do moral actions that enhance the company's reputation and might,
> even it it turns out they don't, increase the PNV in the long run. I
> believe Ronald McDonald House is paid for out of McDonald's profits
> and, if so, that's an example**. Giving equal pay for equal work***,
> is another example.

What is long term NPV and short term NPV? NPV is at a specific point in time (i.e. right now).

[Yisroel Markov]

On Wed, 8 May 2013 22:38:19 +0000 (UTC), mm <mm2...@bigfoot.com> said:

>On Wed, 8 May 2013 13:40:21 +0000 (UTC),
>malcolm...@btinternet.com wrote:
>
>>On Tuesday, May 7, 2013 8:30:12 PM UTC+1, W. Baker wrote:
>>>
>>> So you think that it would be OK for McDonalds, say, to set a lower wage
>>> rate for female hamburger flippers than for male hamburger flipers.
>>>
>
>You should start the first sentence below,
>
>"Assume that..."

Most people don't require this much handholding, IMHO.

>>MacDonalds pays male burger flippers 7 dollars and hour and female burger
>>flippers five. Burger King pays all burger flippers six dollars and hour.
>>So what's going to happen? All the male burger flippers apply to MacDonald's
>>first, all the female burger flippers to Burger King. So MacDonald's pays
>>7 dollars and hour and Burger King six. Eventually MacDonald's is going to
>>go bankrupt, unless the male burger flippers are more desireable in some
>>way (flip more burgers, take less time off, dip their hands in the till
>>more often, attract in high-spending female executives who like their
>>burgers flipped by young men etc).
>
>This advice is totally for your benefit. I won't benefit because
>you didnt' fool me into thinking you knew how much McD pays or that
>they have a 2 dollar difference by sex. But on other topics, you
>might convince people you know wat you are talking about. If you
>only talked to other Brits, maybe they would all knew what you mean,
>but in the US, people start sentences like yours with "Assume that".

Not when the hypothetical nature of the subject is so blindingly
obvious!

>If you're in science, you have to write for people of many countries.
>You don't want to look like a fool in your science writing, like I
>think you look here.

Oh dear God.

[David Makowsky]

On Friday, May 10, 2013 1:58:32 AM UTC-5, googy wrote:

> On Thu, 9 May 2013 19:03:06 +0000 (UTC), David Makowsky
> <dlmak...@gmail.com> wrote:

[ Snip ]

> >Nonsensical drivel.

> I know I'm not polite to everyone, but I've been polite to you. No
> need to be insutling, especially when it actually makes good sense to
> doubt an argument based almost entirely on "I've seen it before and I
> know".

That is not what i was really saying (to a small extent it was) but you are correct about being polite and I apologize.

As to you example below, Charities can be good business sense theoretically if people give them more business because of it.

[Yisroel Markov]

On Fri, 10 May 2013 13:15:53 +0000 (UTC), David Makowsky
<dlmak...@gmail.com> said:

>On Friday, May 10, 2013 1:46:11 AM UTC-5, googy wrote:
>
>> On Thu, 9 May 2013 20:42:30 +0000 (UTC), David Makowsky
>> <dlmak...@gmail.com> wrote:

[snip]

>> > > The amount of pay anyone gets should only be based on the value of that
>> > > person to the firm. Nothing else."
>> --end quote--
>
>> I didnt think that had anything to do with whether it was known what
>> the payer was doing. In my last reply, for the sake of good Jewish
>> practice, I added that no one knew, and I think I made my point, that
>> there are times when it's okay to pay more than the employee's value
>> to the firm.
>
>By "known" I mean the salary and benefits are on the books.
>
>> But let me retract that part. Not everyone observes the secrecy part
>> of charity, and while for some owners, it would cause jealousy and
>> worker unrest to have higher wages for widows with children, some
>> employees would not object and some owners have garnered enough trust
>> or have enough charisma that they could do it.. So lets's assume
>> it's not a violation of any law. if no one complains, why isn't it
>> okay?
>
>Are you arguing that whatever he gives her should be on the books so no one knows that part of it is Tzedakah? If not then I do not know what you mean. If so then you raise an interesting point that I have not thought of before. You could be right.

Aren't you discussing a privately-held corporation? Its books aren't
necessarily public.

[David Makowsky]

I didn't mean that literally. I was referring to assets of the business versus personal assets. However now that I think about it some more your point does seem justified.

[topazgalaxy]

On May 9, 1:35 pm, Herman Rubin <hru...@skew.stat.purdue.edu> wrote:

I am not a lawyer, however, it seems reasonable to me that, based
upon the job description of a specific job, there should be equal pay
for equal work.
It is a complex subject because some jobs are structured based on
hours worked, some jobs are structured based up number of pieces made
etc etc.
Of course there should be room for pay raises and promotions when
someone produces alot more widgets, has seniority, proves
themselves to be a great asset to the company etc.

However, in general, to say to someone "I am going to knowingly pay
you less because you are female and pay someone else more, no matter
how great a job you do," that just does not seem right . Call me a
dreamer but I still believe in a true meritocracy , ie I believe it
should be that way. Of course , reality can be very different with
nepotism etc etc.

[Herman Rubin]

On 2013-05-12, topazgalaxy <topaz...@gmail.com> wrote:

> On May 9, 1:35锟絧m, Herman Rubin <hru...@skew.stat.purdue.edu> wrote:
>> On 2013-05-08, topazgalaxy <topazgal...@gmail.com> wrote:

>> > On May 7, 9:31锟絘m, David Makowsky <dlmakow...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> > I am astounded that you would be opposed to the idea of 'equal pay for

>> > equal work". What if, instead of 锟絤en and women being compared at the
>> > same job, it was let's say 锟絘 Jewish person and 锟絘 non Jewish person?
>> > We have two theoretical people 锟絘t the same job, 锟絣et us say they make
>> > widgets. 锟絋hey are paid let us say hourly. They work the same number
>> > of hours, produce about the same number of widgets. 锟絊houldn't they
>> > earn 锟絫he same ?
>> > If the pay is determined on the issue of "hours", 锟給r they are

>> > professionals who are offered an annual salary, shouldn't they be paid
>> > the same if their work is equivalent? Or should the boss say "well, I

>> > feel like giving my Jewish worker less" and that is OK? 锟絅ot to me.

>> What is equivalent work? 锟絋his can be almost impossible to
>> determine. 锟紸nd the same can be said for "equivalent background".

>> High school diplomas and college degrees are almost meaningless,
>> and even the same degree from the same university might mean quite
>> different things for different students.

> I am not a lawyer, however, it seems reasonable to me that, based
> upon the job description of a specific job, there should be equal pay
> for equal work.
> It is a complex subject because some jobs are structured based on
> hours worked, some jobs are structured based up number of pieces made
> etc etc.
> Of course there should be room for pay raises and promotions when
> someone produces alot more widgets, has seniority, proves
> themselves to be a great asset to the company etc.

> However, in general, to say to someone "I am going to knowingly pay
> you less because you are female and pay someone else more, no matter
> how great a job you do," that just does not seem right . Call me a
> dreamer but I still believe in a true meritocracy , ie I believe it
> should be that way. Of course , reality can be very different with
> nepotism etc etc.

Being in academia, we see the problem otherwise. We have to evaluate
people on their ability to teach and to do research, and both of
these run into problems. It is very hard to evaluate either of these;
students now are even objecting to faculty who try to make them think,
and research may need to be considered from various angles.

I believe in a meritocracy, but we seem to be moving to what might
be called a "grantocracy". The ability to get grants for poor
research is great, and an honest proposal, which is likely to mean
that results may or may not be coming, may well be turned down.

Likewise, good theoretical results, which may be used practically,
may not be given much credit because the major contribution was
seeing it could be done. I say that research consists in seeing
the obvious; Sz. Gyorgyi puts it as seeing what everyone else
has seen and thinking what nobody else has thought. Insights are
difficult to evaluate.

[Shelly]

On 5/6/2013 12:08 PM, David Makowsky wrote:
> Contraception maybe, but given the fact that NO ONE (my Mother included) had the right to abort me, and I suspect there are others that feel that way about themselves, there is nothing to answer for with respect to abortion because there can be no answer except under life threatening circumstances (Which is not the same as saying "health" in almost all cases).

IYNSHO. Others take a different view.

--
Shelly

[Shelly]

On 5/7/2013 9:31 AM, David Makowsky wrote:

> The above having been said, I am also shocked I have not yet been royally flamed ...
>

OK. Whaever.

--
Shelly

[Shelly]

On 5/7/2013 6:39 PM, David Makowsky wrote:
> In terms of non publicly held corporations, unless the people at the top care about things other than maximizing profits, in the long term it would take collusion to get away with such a policy and that is illegal.

You keep repeating this nonsense mantra. It has nothing to do with
"maximizing profits". It if were such, and women would accept a lower
pay, then to "maximize profits" the company should ONLY hire women. The
stockholders should sue if they hire a man (with equal qualifications)
at a higher rate because they could have "maximized profits" by hiring a
woman and didn't.

Do you see how ridiculous your argument sounds when put on the other foot?

--
Shelly

[Shelly]

On 5/8/2013 4:57 PM, topazgalaxy wrote:

> On May 7, 9:31 am, David Makowsky <dlmakow...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> I am astounded that you would be opposed to the idea of 'equal pay for

> equal work". What if, instead of men and women being compared at the
> same job, it was let's say a Jewish person and a non Jewish person?
> We have two theoretical people at the same job, let us say they make
> widgets. They are paid let us say hourly. They work the same number
> of hours, produce about the same number of widgets. Shouldn't they

> earn the same ?
>
> If the pay is determined on the issue of "hours", or they are

> professionals who are offered an annual salary, shouldn't they be paid
> the same if their work is equivalent? Or should the boss say "well, I

> feel like giving my Jewish worker less" and that is OK? Not to me.

Well said.

[Shelly]

On 5/8/2013 7:13 PM, David Makowsky wrote:

> The amount of pay anyone gets should only be based on the value of that person to the firm. Nothing else.

In other words, you now SUPPORT "equal pay for equal work"?

--
Shelly

[Fred Goldstein]

Right. Had he been a rodef, it would have been his mother's DUTY to
abort him, to preserve her body.

This is where the pro-human-sacrifice movement shows its true colors.
Right down the road from me, Boston College, a Jesuit institution (i.e.,
reports to Rome, not the local archdiocese) with a large Irish-American
constituency, invited the Prime Minister of Ireland Enda Kenny to speak
at commencement. Sean O'Malley, RC archbishop of Boston, announced he
is boycotting. Why? Because Mr. Kenny supports the law that permits
abortion to SAVE THE LIFE of the mother! Mr. O'Malley demands DEATH to
mothers with failed pregnancies incompatible with life. He wants to
sacrifice their lives because he worships fetuses and values them above
living women. (I suppose the fetus might be male, but he doesn't make
an exception for female ones; they have to die painfully after being born.)

Judaism does not worship fetuses. Not that I speak for the
christianized varieties that pass themselves off as datim.

[David Makowsky]

You and anyone else can apply whatever false adjectives you wish and provide whatever false analogies you want. Totally not relevant.

All that matters is that it is the law and it is enforced. In other works, despite your comments, all that matters is that it is. And it is.

[David Makowsky]

Nope. There are a million different reasons for why that is the case, and some of them should be obvious to someone without training in finance and economics (I have an MBA with concentrations in both). However you might want to educate yourself on the term "Marginal Product of labor". That should keep you busy for while. I am not familiar with equal pay laws, but I would assume that would be one of the major defenses against a lawsuit brought under those laws.

Lastly I thought I saw a change in your tone just before you left for your cruise. Not in this post but in at least one other I saw that you might have reverted. I already stopped responding to you in one thread, and I am seriously considering not responding to you at law (It has to do with a Jewish law that begins lifnei Iver ...) and I don't want to take responsibility for what you post. So feel free to have the last word.

[Shelly]

What *ARE* you talking about? Of course there is a law against
discrimination -- and there should be. That wasn't the subject of my
comment. Read what I wrote again.

--
Shelly

[Shelly]

OK, I'll have the last word if that is your desire. I don't care if you
have a PhD in these related subjects. As for the concept of marginal
costs/returns, I am quite familiar with it. What I am commenting on is
your last two sentences:

"The amount of pay anyone gets should only be based on the value of that
person to the firm. Nothing else."

That means ("nothing else") that their pay should be base *ONLY*
("nothing else") on their work. Simply stated in other English words:

There should be equal pay for equal work. Nothing else.

IOW, your statement says you *SUPPORT" equal pay for equal work-- unless
you mean than men are inherently "more valuable to the firm" simply
because they are men. Is that what you meant?

--
Shelly

[David Makowsky]

On Monday, May 13, 2013 1:23:09 AM UTC-5, Fred Goldstein wrote:

> On 5/12/2013 9:47 PM, Shelly wrote:

> > On 5/6/2013 12:08 PM, David Makowsky wrote:

> >> Contraception maybe, but given the fact that NO ONE (my Mother
> >> included) had the right to abort me, and I suspect there are others
> >> that feel that way about themselves, there is nothing to answer for
> >> with respect to abortion because there can be no answer except under
> >> life threatening circumstances (Which is not the same as saying
> >> "health" in almost all cases).

> > IYNSHO. Others take a different view.

> Right. Had he been a rodef, it would have been his mother's DUTY to
> abort him, to preserve her body.

Not to preserve her body (Whatever that means) but to preserve her life. Only then is it a Rodef.

[Fred Goldstein]

Without a living body there is no nefesh, no life.

Just what constitutes a rodef is subject to considerable diversity of
opinion. I suspect it is a litmus test.

But not even the most extreme haredim would agree with O'Malley, and
it's likely that his new boss agrees with him that human sacrifice is
appropriate obeisance to baby Jeezus.

[Yisroel Markov]

I think that in this day and age everyone supports the concept of
equal pay for equal work. But that doesn't necessarily mean supporting
an actual law mandating same. It would depend on how the law is
written - how "equal work" is defined, what the penalties and
compliance burdens are, and the like. All bad laws have been enacted
with a good purpose in mind.

[David Makowsky]

On Monday, May 13, 2013 11:36:24 AM UTC-5, Yisroel Markov wrote:

> I think that in this day and age everyone supports the concept of
> equal pay for equal work. But that doesn't necessarily mean supporting
> an actual law mandating same. It would depend on how the law is
> written - how "equal work" is defined, what the penalties and
> compliance burdens are, and the like. All bad laws have been enacted
> with a good purpose in mind.

One of my gripes with the law (as opposed to the concept) is unless someone in the offending business does something stupid like send an email there is no way to enforce the law with any sense of fairness or justice.

Let me give you just one example.

Let's say there is a tax incentive to hire someone who is out of work. A male who was out of work is applying to two companies. There already is a woman doing the exact same job at one of the companies. Let's say they will produce exactly the same (How this would even be determined is another problem with such laws, but let us assume it is the case here).

The two companies both want to hire this male. His worth to both companies is not just his output, but it is his output plus the value of the tax incentive. Company one offers him the same pay as the woman plus part of the tax incentive to make sure they hire him instead of the other company (Which does not make a similar offer). Simply put he is worth more to the company than the woman since they will still get his output plus the remainder of the tax incentive.

Should this be illegal? I don't think so even though it is clearly not equal work for equal pay (And please no comments about how the other company either should or would make a comparable offer, that is not my point).

[Shelly]

Well, I beg to differ. There is at least one person, David M., who has
explicitly stated that he does not support the concept of equal pay for
equal work because it encourages women to leave their "proper" (my
summary word of his writing) place as raising children and go into the
workforce. It was not just the law that he was against.

Now if all he were against was the law for this, then I would simply ask
him -- and you -- how else can we guarantee it (or at least move closer
to that reality)?


--
Shelly

[Shelly]

I think it should be illegal because the end result is a workforce where
the man is paid more for the same job than the woman. What they could
do is offer the same pay plus a one time signing bonus. The reason for
the signing bonus is that it is paid for by the government and that is
the luck of the draw for the man. However, another end result is that
there is equal pay for equal work from that point on.

--
Shelly

[Yisroel Markov]

On Mon, 13 May 2013 17:51:16 +0000 (UTC), Shelly

He has posted today: "...my gripes with the law (as opposed to the
concept)..."

>Now if all he were against was the law for this, then I would simply ask
>him -- and you -- how else can we guarantee it (or at least move closer
>to that reality)?

Not necessarily with a law. In the skilled trades and in the
professions the idea of merit pay is already firmly established while
determination of merit can be a matter of judgment, and tricky to
prove or disprove. Such situations engender bad law more often, and
can lead to endless litigation. In a more straightforward context,
such as hourly wage semi-skilled or unskilled work, or piece work, it
may be possible to write a law that will not be too cumbersome in
enforcement.

[Shelly]

Yes, he said that today -- but that is not what he started commenting on
in this thread. Also, we don't know from what he wrote here whether or
not he agrees with the concept. He previously said he didn't.

>
>> Now if all he were against was the law for this, then I would simply ask
>> him -- and you -- how else can we guarantee it (or at least move closer
>> to that reality)?
>
> Not necessarily with a law. In the skilled trades and in the
> professions the idea of merit pay is already firmly established while
> determination of merit can be a matter of judgment, and tricky to
> prove or disprove. Such situations engender bad law more often, and
> can lead to endless litigation. In a more straightforward context,
> such as hourly wage semi-skilled or unskilled work, or piece work, it
> may be possible to write a law that will not be too cumbersome in
> enforcement.

Yes, piece work is clear. I think, though, that a law is good way.

--
Shelly

[Yisroel Markov]

On Tue, 14 May 2013 02:07:03 +0000 (UTC), Shelly

<shel...@thevillages.net> said:

>On 5/13/2013 5:28 PM, Yisroel Markov wrote:
>> On Mon, 13 May 2013 17:51:16 +0000 (UTC), Shelly
>> <shel...@thevillages.net> said:

[snip]

>>> Well, I beg to differ. There is at least one person, David M., who has
>>> explicitly stated that he does not support the concept of equal pay for
>>> equal work because it encourages women to leave their "proper" (my
>>> summary word of his writing) place as raising children and go into the
>>> workforce. It was not just the law that he was against.
>>
>> He has posted today: "...my gripes with the law (as opposed to the
>> concept)..."
>
>Yes, he said that today -- but that is not what he started commenting on
>in this thread. Also, we don't know from what he wrote here whether or
>not he agrees with the concept. He previously said he didn't.

Not the same thing. IIRC he had expressed an opinion that discouraging
women from working may be a desirable social policy, of which
differential pay may be a method. But I'm sure he'd agree that this is
not something you can force a private employer to do. Differential pay
arrangements existed voluntarily, because everyone thought that was
the right thing to do - until they didn't.

David had also mentioned that we already have such a social policy to
some extent, via the marriage penalty and progressive taxation more
generally.

>>> Now if all he were against was the law for this, then I would simply ask
>>> him -- and you -- how else can we guarantee it (or at least move closer
>>> to that reality)?
>>
>> Not necessarily with a law. In the skilled trades and in the
>> professions the idea of merit pay is already firmly established while
>> determination of merit can be a matter of judgment, and tricky to
>> prove or disprove. Such situations engender bad law more often, and
>> can lead to endless litigation. In a more straightforward context,
>> such as hourly wage semi-skilled or unskilled work, or piece work, it
>> may be possible to write a law that will not be too cumbersome in
>> enforcement.
>
>Yes, piece work is clear. I think, though, that a law is good way.

Even if it's vague and cumbersome? You remember which road is paved
with good intentions. Anyway, have you seen research that indicates
that we already have pay equality?

"The AAUW has now joined ranks with serious economists who find that
when you control for relevant differences between men and women
(occupations, college majors, length of time in workplace) the wage
gap narrows to the point of vanishing."
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/christina-hoff-sommers/wage-gap_b_2073804.html

[Shelly]

On 5/14/2013 10:58 AM, Yisroel Markov wrote:
> On Tue, 14 May 2013 02:07:03 +0000 (UTC), Shelly
> <shel...@thevillages.net> said:
>
>> On 5/13/2013 5:28 PM, Yisroel Markov wrote:
>>> On Mon, 13 May 2013 17:51:16 +0000 (UTC), Shelly
>>> <shel...@thevillages.net> said:
>
> [snip]
>
>>>> Well, I beg to differ. There is at least one person, David M., who has
>>>> explicitly stated that he does not support the concept of equal pay for
>>>> equal work because it encourages women to leave their "proper" (my
>>>> summary word of his writing) place as raising children and go into the
>>>> workforce. It was not just the law that he was against.
>>>
>>> He has posted today: "...my gripes with the law (as opposed to the
>>> concept)..."
>>
>> Yes, he said that today -- but that is not what he started commenting on
>> in this thread. Also, we don't know from what he wrote here whether or
>> not he agrees with the concept. He previously said he didn't.
>
> Not the same thing. IIRC he had expressed an opinion that discouraging
> women from working may be a desirable social policy, of which
> differential pay may be a method. But I'm sure he'd agree that this is
> not something you can force a private employer to do. Differential pay
> arrangements existed voluntarily, because everyone thought that was
> the right thing to do - until they didn't.

Yes, the same thing. He expressed that making the salaries the same
encourages women to leave homemaking and he feels that is a bad thing.
Therefore, he was against equal pay for equal work (the concept as well
as the law). I also agree you cannot force an employer to have
differential pay.

> David had also mentioned that we already have such a social policy to
> some extent, via the marriage penalty and progressive taxation more
> generally.

That was viewed as a blip and an error in the rates and so was changed.
It encouraged living together without getting married. We still have
that in the elderly. Social security for a surviving spouse is the
higher of their amount or the deceased spouse's. If the deceased
spouses is less, and that person remarries, then they get the higher of
their own amount or half the new spouse's amount. Often that means that
two elderly people will live together and not marry.

(I haven't checked on this in well over a decade, so I may be wrong.).

>>>> Now if all he were against was the law for this, then I would simply ask
>>>> him -- and you -- how else can we guarantee it (or at least move closer
>>>> to that reality)?
>>>
>>> Not necessarily with a law. In the skilled trades and in the
>>> professions the idea of merit pay is already firmly established while
>>> determination of merit can be a matter of judgment, and tricky to
>>> prove or disprove. Such situations engender bad law more often, and
>>> can lead to endless litigation. In a more straightforward context,
>>> such as hourly wage semi-skilled or unskilled work, or piece work, it
>>> may be possible to write a law that will not be too cumbersome in
>>> enforcement.
>>
>> Yes, piece work is clear. I think, though, that a law is good way.
>
> Even if it's vague and cumbersome? You remember which road is paved
> with good intentions. Anyway, have you seen research that indicates
> that we already have pay equality?

No, we don't.

> "The AAUW has now joined ranks with serious economists who find that
> when you control for relevant differences between men and women
> (occupations, college majors, length of time in workplace) the wage
> gap narrows to the point of vanishing."
> http://www.huffingtonpost.com/christina-hoff-sommers/wage-gap_b_2073804.html

I'll read that later when I have time. Up to now I have seen numbers
that show a significant gap.

--
Shelly

[Shelly]

On 5/14/2013 10:58 AM, Yisroel Markov wrote:

> "The AAUW has now joined ranks with serious economists who find that
> when you control for relevant differences between men and women
> (occupations, college majors, length of time in workplace) the wage
> gap narrows to the point of vanishing."
> http://www.huffingtonpost.com/christina-hoff-sommers/wage-gap_b_2073804.html

They state that the gender gap is more like seven cents rather than
twenty three cents. If we look at those two numbers as being put forth
by the two extreme sides, the true gap probably is closer to somewhere
in the middle, or fifteen cents. To me, that is still a significant gap.

--
Shelly

[Yisroel Markov]

[ Moderator's Comment: Please get back on topic or drop it HPG ]
On Tue, 14 May 2013 16:03:37 +0000 (UTC), Shelly

Doesn't follow. There's a separate public policy argument and an
economic argument. For the latter, David said clearly that the pay
should reflect the value of the worker to the company, and nothing
else.

>I also agree you cannot force an employer to have differential pay.
>
>> David had also mentioned that we already have such a social policy to
>> some extent, via the marriage penalty and progressive taxation more
>> generally.
>
>That was viewed as a blip and an error in the rates and so was changed.

Some blip! It took GWBush and a Republican Congress to fix what many
have previously considered a feature rather than a bug. (It's not 100%
fixed, BTW.)

[snip]

>> "The AAUW has now joined ranks with serious economists who find that
>> when you control for relevant differences between men and women
>> (occupations, college majors, length of time in workplace) the wage
>> gap narrows to the point of vanishing."
>> http://www.huffingtonpost.com/christina-hoff-sommers/wage-gap_b_2073804.html

Elsewhere, you wrote:

>They state that the gender gap is more like seven cents rather than
>twenty three cents. If we look at those two numbers as being put forth
>by the two extreme sides,

Why should we? If the AAUW is extreme, it's for the side which harps
on unequal pay. It "worked hard" for both the Lily Ledbetter law and
tha Paycheck Fairness Act. The point of Sommers' article was "avoid
the hype and look at the numbers." Trying as they might, they could
only find 7%.

So if we do compare extremes, it becomes 7 cents vs. zero.

>the true gap probably is closer to somewhere
>in the middle, or fifteen cents. To me, that is still a significant gap.

But there's no support for this averaging. It relies on an assumption
that the two views are to be accorded equal weight, which is dubious
on its face.

"U.S. Department of Labor... examined more than 50 peer-reviewed
papers and concluded that the 23-cent wage gap "may be almost entirely
the result of individual choices being made by both male and female
workers."

50 studies, all produced by extreme sides?