Gender wage gap.

[The Bacon Guy]

Quote by: Left Me: Another dismissal of the importance of parenting in place of a sound argument. In what universe is childcare a non-essential for a sole support mother, or a two parent family in which they need both incomes to get by?

That's not the overwhelming majority of families though, which is why the need for qualified child care workers is not widespread (though the desire for them may be). Plumbers and electricians on the other hand are needed by just about everybody at one time or another and can therefore charge whatever they want because people are at their mercy.

Quote by: Left Me: The continuation of the species is not a choice. It is a biological imperative. Both the individual ~and~ society at large have a responsibility in it.

That's your opinion and it depends entirely on your particular priorities. As such, it's a subjective choice that you as an individual have made. No person or physical law has forced you.

Quote by: Left Me: Yep, but I think motives are important, because they help illustrate that an argument reflects a rationalization rather than a genuine belief. I don't think you genuinely believe society should have zero responsibility for supporting parenting. You seem intelligent enough to know that a society like that could not flourish. Me: The barely concealed disdain which I believe you have displayed, and continue to display, towards women with children, is what leads me to believe it. Like I said, this is important because I think your arguments thus far amount to rationalizations and value judgments. I'd like to get past that to something objective.

It's nothing to do with distain. I respect their choice and their right to make it; I simply don't appreciate them trying to shift the responsibility for that choice onto other people.

Furthermore, I never once claimed that I oppose giving support to families, just as I don't oppose intervening if you see a crime being comitted. What I am arguing against here is the idea that capitalism (or indeed anyone else) is responsible for the situation of these women simply for not preventing it.

[big_lefty]

Quote by: inri This debate brings to mind a friend of mine who worked for an oil company. It was his job to hire the engineers who worked under him. He sheepishly admitted to me that given the choice between and equally qualified male and an equally qualified female, both fresh out of school in their twenties, he'd gravitate towards choosing the male....why? Because he told me, it was highly likely that the female would bail out in a couple of years to have children and may or may not return back to job. If she did in fact return after taking maternity leave, it was quite likely she'd take on the role as primary care giver, as well as engineer severely limiting the job performance, dedication and time spent on job. The upheaval this would cause to his office was viewed by him as a negative. At first I was outraged at his stance. However after some thought on the subject I changed my mind. How can someone be blamed for desiring the employee that they view as being the most stable and providing the best chance for longterm, uninterupted employment? As much as we'd like to say this isn't fair, the truth is it's asking someone to deny the facts before them in favor of acting in a manner that's considered politically correct. If disparity exists between wages for men and women it is due to this factor. Bearing children is and should always be a personal choice. There is nothing that says all people (or women) must pro-create - however as a society we seem to have this attitude that procreation is a given. It is not - and evidenced by the poor parenting skills, and absentee parenting we see today, it should not be. It is a lifestyle choice that involves huge responsibility and not everyone is apparently cut out to take on this responsibility.... The fact is that although men become fathers, they do not bear children. Fair or unfair this is simply the way it is. When women begin to enter professional careers with the same amount of dedication as men (not bearing children) then wages can be expected to be equal...until then, it's a nice idea but not really a practical one.

Ah, more of the "personal choice" rationalization, as if the continuation of our species were a whim and practiced by only a few, selfish individuals for specious reasons.
Nothing says we must procreate? So, would you suggest that all of us can simply stop procreating? You are perfectly okay with not a single other child being born? Do you think this is practical, desirable, or even possible?

For any society to have a chance to grow and to providing the bare minimum of quality of life, childbearing and parenting has to be supported. This is the reason for maternity and paternity benefits and the reason why it makes no practical sense to allow discrimination on the basis of potential to procreate.
Your comments about poor parenting are somewhat ironic in that you indicate you are comfortable with the idea of society not doing anything to assist people in effective parenting. If employers better addressed the needs of employees who are parents, there would likely not be so many absentee parents, as you put it. So while you bemoan a social ill, you admit that you don't support creating conditions that could change it. This seems contradictory to me.

Further, it is clearly a human rights violation to discriminate against individuals based on probability (real or imagined) related to a given social group. For example, men are more likely to steal from their employers, have workplace accidents, and to be violent in the workplace. According to your reasoning, an employer could refuse to hire men because the probability of injury or criminal behavior, which costs the employer money, is greater among men.

Is your friend aware that what he is doing is illegal?

[big_lefty]

Quote by: tivodan1116 I'm talking about two people in the same position. A woman, working as a carpenter, for company X, in state X, with 5 years of experience. A man, working as a carpenter, for company X, in state X, with 5 years of experience. Are you saying that, in a situation like that, the woman does equal work for less pay?

Both in the same company? It's certainly possible. One way to accomplish this would be to give the male a phony designation as foreman so as to justify higher pay, even though the work does not change.

[The Bacon Guy]

Quote by: Left Both in the same company? It's certainly possible. One way to accomplish this would be to give the male a phony designation as foreman so as to justify higher pay, even though the work does not change.

I believe he was asking you whether it actually happens; not whether it's possible.

[big_lefty]

Quote by: tivodan1116 A wholly reasonable position. Your hunch, FWIW, is borne out by the data. Department of Labor statistics show that childless women make within a statistical margin of error to their male counterparts, adjusting for other factors like age, experience, geography, etc.

Then, since men are more likely to have workplace accidents and make use of workplace disability compensation programs, one could justify refusing to hire men based on that probability. You'd be okay with that?
Would you be okay with refusing to hire workers of a certain race if it were shown they were statistically more likely to take time off work?

Your claim about the Dept of Labor stats is untrue.

Here is the pdf;

www.bls.gov/cps/cpswom2004.pdf -

On page 19, you will see the median weekly earnings of women with no children under 18 were 582, but 661 for men without children, and 794 for men with children.

[big_lefty]

Quote by: The Bacon Guy I believe he was asking you whether it actually happens; not whether it's possible.

Then it's a silly question, since I have no way of knowing for sure.

[The Bacon Guy]

You probably shouldn't have claimed it as fact in your original response to Tivo then.

[big_lefty]

Quote by: The Bacon Guy That's not the overwhelming majority of families though, which is why the need for qualified child care workers is not widespread (though the desire for them may be). Plumbers and electricians on the other hand are needed by just about everybody at one time or another and can therefore charge whatever they want because people are at their mercy. That's your opinion and it depends entirely on your particular priorities. As such, it's a subjective choice that you as an individual have made. No person or physical law has forced you. It's nothing to do with distain. I respect their choice and their right to make it; I simply don't appreciate them trying to shift the responsibility for that choice onto other people. Furthermore, I never once claimed that I oppose giving support to families, just as I don't oppose intervening if you see a crime being comitted. What I am arguing against here is the idea that capitalism (or indeed anyone else) is responsible for the situation of these women simply for not preventing it.

Do you have no idea how many single parent families there are, and do you seriously believe most families could get by on one income?
Bacon Guy, almost one third of households with children are headed by a single parent in the US.
Further, your claim that an "overwhelming majority" must require a service in order or it to be essential is bogus. An overwhelming majority of people do not require the services of tradespeople such as plumbers, which you claimed was an essential need.You could indeed go a whole life without their services if your plumbing, electrical, or whatever, were properly installed to begin with. Many people also do their own work. My spouse and I, for example, have been able to do all the plumbing and electrical in our home, to full code standards, simply by studying books on the subject. Anyone of sufficient intelligence and industriousness could do the same. It's also not something one requires in order to survive. No childcare means no job, and no job means no food. You won't go hungry because your drain needs snaking out, and you can't b a do-it-yourselfer when it comes to daycare.
So, which is really "essential"?

I don't think capitalism is responsible for this either, but I would like you to explain how equity in pay for women with children amounts to "shifting responsibility" for their choices.

I would submit you that evolutionary imperative is indeed a physical law.
Therefore, we, as a species, are indeed forced to procreate. We aren't forced to do so as individuals, but that's irrelevant, because we are talking about employment equity for ~all~ women, not just individuals who make choices you approve of. If we don't have social supports for childbearing and childrearing, we violate evolutionary imperative.

[big_lefty]

Quote by: The Bacon Guy You probably shouldn't have claimed it as fact in your original response to Tivo then.

Er, no. You might want to scroll back and refresh your memory. I posted a series of statistics refuting the claim that unequal pay for the same job never happens. He then asked me a vague question about "exactly equal" work, then clarified it to ask me if a specific instance of such discrimination in a specific industry had ever happened.
He must have thought it was a "gotcha!" question, and apparently, so did you, possibly because neither of you paid much attention to what I was actually saying.

<shrug>
The "gotcha!" game often backfires like that.

[The Bacon Guy]

Quote by: Left Do you have no idea how many single parent families there are, and do you seriously believe most families could get by on one income? Bacon Guy, almost one third of households with children are headed by a single parent in the US.

Quote by: Left No childcare means no job, and no job means no food.

Right, because all unemployed people starve to death. The unemployed get by fine on government handouts, particularly if they have children, so there's nothing to stop a parent who doesn't want to pay for childcare leaving work and going on the dole. I believe a great number of single mothers do.

Quote by: Left Further, your claim that an "overwhelming majority" must require a service in order or it to be essential is bogus. An overwhelming majority of people do not require the services of tradespeople such as plumbers, which you claimed was an essential need.You could indeed go a whole life without their services if your plumbing, electrical, or whatever, were properly installed to begin with. Many people also do their own work. My spouse and I, for example, have been able to do all the plumbing and electrical in our home, to full code standards, simply by studying books on the subject. Anyone of sufficient intelligence and industriousness could do the same. It's also not something one requires in order to survive.

Right, but not everyone is of sufficient intelligence and industriousness, and, even if they do have the ability, the majority of people don't have the confidence to do these jobs themselves.

Quote by: Left I don't think capitalism is responsible for this either, but I would like you to explain how equity in pay for women with children amounts to "shifting responsibility" for their choices.

They do get equal pay provided they do the same job.

Quote by: Left I would submit you that evolutionary imperative is indeed a physical law. Therefore, we, as a species, are indeed forced to procreate. We aren't forced to do so as individuals, but that's irrelevant, because we are talking about employment equity for ~all~ women, not just individuals who make choices you approve of. If we don't have social supports for childbearing and childrearing, we violate evolutionary imperative.

It may be an evolutionary imperative but that doesn't make it any less of a choice for each individual woman. They are physically able not to have children and there is therefore not a physical force compelling them to procreate. There is a mental force which encourages many women to have kids, but then there is also a mental force which encourages murderers to kill. That doesn't make them any less responsible for their actions.

Quote by: Left Er, no. You might want to scroll back and refresh your memory. I posted a series of statistics refuting the claim that unequal pay for the same job never happens.

These statistics did not refute the claim. They, as I already said, falsely assume that every physician, professor, lawyer etc. does exactly the same job.

Quote by: Left He then asked me a vague question about "exactly equal" work, then clarified it to ask me if a specific instance of such discrimination in a specific industry had ever happened. He must have thought it was a "gotcha!" question, and apparently, so did you, possibly because neither of you paid much attention to what I was actually saying.

What you were actually saying is that women doing the exact same jobs as men get paid on average less. You haven't been able to prove it though, since all your statistics prove is that women working in the same general area as men earn on average less money.

[inri]

Quote by: big_lefty Ah, more of the "personal choice" rationalization, as if the continuation of our species were a whim and practiced by only a few, selfish individuals for specious reasons. Nothing says we must procreate? So, would you suggest that all of us can simply stop procreating? You are perfectly okay with not a single other child being born? Do you think this is practical, desirable, or even possible? For any society to have a chance to grow and to providing the bare minimum of quality of life, childbearing and parenting has to be supported. This is the reason for maternity and paternity benefits and the reason why it makes no practical sense to allow discrimination on the basis of potential to procreate. Your comments about poor parenting are somewhat ironic in that you indicate you are comfortable with the idea of society not doing anything to assist people in effective parenting. If employers better addressed the needs of employees who are parents, there would likely not be so many absentee parents, as you put it. So while you bemoan a social ill, you admit that you don't support creating conditions that could change it. This seems contradictory to me. Further, it is clearly a human rights violation to discriminate against individuals based on probability (real or imagined) related to a given social group. For example, men are more likely to steal from their employers, have workplace accidents, and to be violent in the workplace. According to your reasoning, an employer could refuse to hire men because the probability of injury or criminal behavior, which costs the employer money, is greater among men. Is your friend aware that what he is doing is illegal?

Hey I'm all for equal pay for equal work...but when one person is more dedicated, works longer hours and is generally more focused upon the job than the other, they deserve to be payed a higher wage.
I suspect these studies providing these statistics are somewhat skewed, and are more reflective of the varyance in the types of jobs that men and women typically choose and no so much of actual same job, same hours spent, same committment to job reflection.
Any examples within my social circle do not reflect these stats. The women who have put in the same time as men and are doing equal jobs do receive equal pay. (psychologist, doctors, office workers, teachers, execs) I'd love to see some real life examples that are reflective of these stats. I suspect there are circumstances here that are left unmentioned that figure in.
Re; the idea that somehow those who choose to pro-create and continue the human species are somehow doing the rest of humans a favor is not one that all will agree upon, particularly In a world that is agruable overpopulated at present.
Becoming a parent is not a given as is evidenced by the many who choose not to procreate... a choice often mde for the very reason of pursuing a career fully.
No doubt,Being a good parent, caring for children is an important, full time job..the very idea that somehow an individual is capable of being a primary care giver to their child as well as seriously pursuing a career is debatable. Something is going to suffer. If its not the job, then it will be the child, if it's not the child then it will be the job. I'm all for some amount of support for those who choose to bring children into this world, but lets face it, no amount of gov't support is going to make someone a 'superhuman'. There is only so much a person is capable of time-wise and energy wise. Employers deserve better than a half-committed employee...children deserve better than half-committed care.
It is a fact that many more men are becoming primary care givers today. Perhaps with this shift we'll begin to see the wage gap even out. Men who are primary care givers or who choose to stay home with children will be taking lower paying jobs or exhibiting less committment to their employment and will therefore receive lower pay...as they should.

As a parent of 2 myself, I was real clear on the fact that my choice to bring them into this world meant that my income would take a huge dip during the years of their young childhood. Being that I've always been self-employed my situation was perhaps different than many employees, however in some ways is may have been a more accurate reflection of the situation. I was not able to put in the same effort or hours after choosing to have children, therefore my income reflected that. I can't even imagine griping about this as it was completely MY choice...I certainly don't expect anyone to applaud my choice or somehow 'make up' for the fact that my income came to a screeching halt when I gave birth, when I could have just as easily chosen not to have kids and keep the status of my employment and income intact.