Gender wage gap.

[nerdvincent]

Astonishing.
Male-female income disparity in the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Another example of wicked capitalism.

[The Bacon Guy]

How is it the fault of capitalism that women tend to choose lower-paying jobs?

[ironeagle]

I have to agree with Bacon on this as much as I hate saying it women tend to accept jobs that pay less far more often than men do. However there are also many female dominated professions which lack good representaion and need unions to help them achieve better pay and benefits. An example is the child care industry that finaly unionized, which is partly why child care is so unaffordable to women with low paying jobs, because the child care givers are making a living wage, which sometimes equals to, or is more than, the income of the mother's job. The Cosmetology industry is a field that could use unionization all over the country. We pay alot of money for school, and the cost of license fees, tools and required contiunued education makes it difficult for most Cosmetologists, and similar licensed practitioners to keep up, because of low wages, lack of benefits, and lack of affordable insurance. Additionaly professionals in these fields also lack good protections and representation against employers who will fire new workers just because they don't join their clique, do not want to gossip, do not design like the owner or manager, or because they don't like the way you tie your shoes. I find that many female oriented or dominated professions are this way. I have watched a vast majority of my former co-students and professionals who have quit the field to persue other professions because they can't make enough money to support their families.

[The Bacon Guy]

Plus there's the fact that more women tend to leave work to take care of children than men. These are all social issues; not economic factors caused by capitalism.

I also had a psychology lecturer once who tried to pass this wage gap off as evidence that society was prejudiced or discriminatory against women. Obviously nonsense, since women, doing the same jobs as men, get paid exactly the same wage. The simple fact is that women, entirely by their own choice, don't do the same jobs as men.

[ironeagle]

I will say that I do believe there are times when companies will discriminate against women by saying the job requires heavy lifting, and many women can't lift the weight, however, most of these jobs actually use pullys, machines and forklifts to lift the weight of the products they claim are lifted by hand in the advertisments. Those adverts make me mad. Men don't leave work as much to care for children that's true, but that can show a lack of responsibility on the part of the father to his sick child, or that he feels dominate over his wife but sometimes too I think it's a matter of who makes more money if John makes $20/hour and Alice makes $7.25.hour it's only practical that she stay home instead of John. Unfortunatly that adds to the problem, women have to make the choice that they need to come home because they don't make as much money. Someone has to make the choice to care for the children when they are sick, I am only sad that more fathers don't think this is their responsibilty too.

[Gods_Mercenary]

Quote by: nerdvincent Astonishing. Male-female income disparity in the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Another example of wicked capitalism.

How is it capitalism's fault that men are chauvinist pigs? I mean, no system can fight male tendencies.

[Dan_77]

Quote by: nerdvincent Astonishing. Male-female income disparity in the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Another example of wicked capitalism.

What's astonishing is that people still think that this is a result of discrimination or any other "wicked" forces besides free choice.

You need to educate yourself on something called the logical fallacy of assuming correlation equals causation.

[big_lefty]

Quote by: The Bacon Guy Plus there's the fact that more women tend to leave work to take care of children than men. These are all social issues; not economic factors caused by capitalism. I also had a psychology lecturer once who tried to pass this wage gap off as evidence that society was prejudiced or discriminatory against women. Obviously nonsense, since women, doing the same jobs as men, get paid exactly the same wage. The simple fact is that women, entirely by their own choice, don't do the same jobs as men.

Actually, that isn't so.

<Equal pay is a problem in every occupational category, even in occupations where women considerably outnumber men, the DPE study shows. Last year, for example:

* Female elementary and middle school teachers earned nearly10 percent less than similarly employed men, despite comprising 82 percent of the field.
* Female registered nurses earned more than 10 percent less than their male colleagues, although 90 percent of nurses are women.
* Female physicians and surgeons earned a whopping 41 percent less than their male counterparts.
* Female college and university teachers earned more than 25 percent less than those who were male.
* Female lawyers earned 23 percent less than male lawyers.>

AFL-CIO NOW BLOG | Women Better Educated than Men, Still Paid Less

There is a link to the actual study there.

More;

-Male tenured/tenure-track faculty earn an average of $6,360 more than female counterparts.

-Male full professors make an average $551 more than female full professors.

-Male associate professors make an average $731 more than female associate professors.

-Male assistant professors make average $433 more than female professors.

Source: Investigation of Gender Income Inequality: The Case of Tenured/Tenure-Track Professors at California State University, Chico - Christa Jennings: Honors Research Project, Sociology Department (2003

Regarding the "women take lower paying jobs" argument, it obviously didn't occur to you that this is because jobs traditionally held by women are considered lower in prestige, therefore lower paying.
Take bank tellers, for example. Before it became female dominated, it was a higher status job and paid better. Across the board, traditionally female held dominated jobs are almost universally lower paying, even though many require more education than traditionally male dominated jobs. Coincidence, or discrimination? Look at the trades, for example. Those are good paying jobs which require only apprenticeship in many cases, and at the most, a relatively brief course of study in a trade school.

Taking time off work to take care of children would not affect somebody's career in a society where parenting is valued as much as material wealth and social status are.
One could make the argument that since in more socialistic societies, daycare tends to be subsidized and maternity benefits extensive, it follows that capitalism is a factor is the devaluation of the parental role of workers, which causes women's careers to stall as a result of childrearing.
I don't buy the notion that capitalism is entirely to blame, but it's probably a factor.

[big_lefty]

Quote by: tivodan1116 What's astonishing is that people still think that this is a result of discrimination or any other "wicked" forces besides free choice. You need to educate yourself on something called the logical fallacy of assuming correlation equals causation.

Perhaps your astonishment will ease when you get the facts. See my post above. Women ~are~ paid less for the same job.

What if the reason those jobs are lower paying is ~because~ they are female dominated? That would be discrimination, meaning that discrimination is indeed the cause, by your own reasoning.

So perhaps you'd best find something else to blame it on lest you defeat your own argument. Why not try the "taking off time to do useless things like have babies" excuse? That's a popular one.

[Dan_77]

Quote by: big_lefty Actually, that isn't so. <Equal pay is a problem in every occupational category, even in occupations where women considerably outnumber men, the DPE study shows. Last year, for example: * Female elementary and middle school teachers earned nearly10 percent less than similarly employed men, despite comprising 82 percent of the field. * Female registered nurses earned more than 10 percent less than their male colleagues, although 90 percent of nurses are women. * Female physicians and surgeons earned a whopping 41 percent less than their male counterparts. * Female college and university teachers earned more than 25 percent less than those who were male. * Female lawyers earned 23 percent less than male lawyers.> AFL-CIO NOW BLOG | Women Better Educated than Men, Still Paid Less There is a link to the actual study there. More; -Male tenured/tenure-track faculty earn an average of $6,360 more than female counterparts. -Male full professors make an average $551 more than female full professors. -Male associate professors make an average $731 more than female associate professors. -Male assistant professors make average $433 more than female professors. Source: Investigation of Gender Income Inequality: The Case of Tenured/Tenure-Track Professors at California State University, Chico - Christa Jennings: Honors Research Project, Sociology Department (2003 Regarding the "women take lower paying jobs" argument, it obviously didn't occur to you that this is because jobs traditionally held by women are considered lower in prestige, therefore lower paying. Take bank tellers, for example. Before it became female dominated, it was a higher status job and paid better. Across the board, traditionally female held dominated jobs are almost universally lower paying, even though many require more education than traditionally male dominated jobs. Coincidence, or discrimination? Look at the trades, for example. Those are good paying jobs which require only apprenticeship in many cases, and at the most, a relatively brief course of study in a trade school. Taking time off work to take care of children would not affect somebody's career in a society where parenting is valued as much as material wealth and social status are. One could make the argument that since in more socialistic societies, daycare tends to be subsidized and maternity benefits extensive, it follows that capitalism is a factor is the devaluation of the parental role of workers, which causes women's careers to stall as a result of childrearing. I don't buy the notion that capitalism is entirely to blame, but it's probably a factor.

So what you are saying is that women do exactly equal work for less pay? Yes or No?

[The Bacon Guy]

Quote by: left Actually, that isn't so. <Equal pay is a problem in every occupational category, even in occupations where women considerably outnumber men, the DPE study shows. Last year, for example: * Female elementary and middle school teachers earned nearly10 percent less than similarly employed men, despite comprising 82 percent of the field. * Female registered nurses earned more than 10 percent less than their male colleagues, although 90 percent of nurses are women. * Female physicians and surgeons earned a whopping 41 percent less than their male counterparts. * Female college and university teachers earned more than 25 percent less than those who were male. * Female lawyers earned 23 percent less than male lawyers.> AFL-CIO NOW BLOG | Women Better Educated than Men, Still Paid Less There is a link to the actual study there. More; -Male tenured/tenure-track faculty earn an average of $6,360 more than female counterparts. -Male full professors make an average $551 more than female full professors. -Male associate professors make an average $731 more than female associate professors. -Male assistant professors make average $433 more than female professors. Source: Investigation of Gender Income Inequality: The Case of Tenured/Tenure-Track Professors at California State University, Chico - Christa Jennings: Honors Research Project, Sociology Department (2003

Falsely assumes that all physicians, lawyers, professors etc. do the exact same job.

Quote by: Left Regarding the "women take lower paying jobs" argument, it obviously didn't occur to you that this is because jobs traditionally held by women are considered lower in prestige, therefore lower paying. Take bank tellers, for example. Before it became female dominated, it was a higher status job and paid better. Across the board, traditionally female held dominated jobs are almost universally lower paying, even though many require more education than traditionally male dominated jobs. Coincidence, or discrimination? Look at the trades, for example. Those are good paying jobs which require only apprenticeship in many cases, and at the most, a relatively brief course of study in a trade school.

That's to do with demand; not with the prestige of the job. There's a shortage of tradesmen/women, which means that they call the shots and are able to charge people ridiculous sums of money for their services. It's nothing to do with their clients deciding to pay them more because of their gender.

Quote by: Left Taking time off work to take care of children would not affect somebody's career in a society where parenting is valued as much as material wealth and social status are. One could make the argument that since in more socialistic societies, daycare tends to be subsidized and maternity benefits extensive, it follows that capitalism is a factor is the devaluation of the parental role of workers, which causes women's careers to stall as a result of childrearing.

The fact that capitalism doesn't prevent it from happening doesn't mean it's the fault of capitalism. If someone commits a crime and I choose not to intervene, I'm not responsible for the outcome of that crime; the criminal is. Similarly, if women choose to leave work or have children they can't afford daycare for, it's not the fault of the government's economic policy; it's the fault of the women in question.

[big_lefty]

Quote by: The Bacon Guy Falsely assumes that all physicians, lawyers, professors etc. do the exact same job. That's to do with demand; not with the prestige of the job. There's a shortage of tradesmen/women, which means that they call the shots and are able to charge people ridiculous sums of money for their services. It's nothing to do with their clients deciding to pay them more because of their gender. The fact that capitalism doesn't prevent it from happening doesn't mean it's the fault of capitalism. If someone commits a crime and I choose not to intervene, I'm not responsible for the outcome of that crime; the criminal is. Similarly, if women choose to leave work or have children they can't afford daycare for, it's not the fault of the government's economic policy; it's the fault of the women in question.

There is indeed a high demand for qualified child care workers, for example, and it is still a low paying job.
So it's not as simple as you think.
I wasn't claiming clients directly discriminate against female tradespeople. I'm saying that male dominated jobs, in general, hold more prestige and thus the higher pay rates have been accepted over time.

As to your other point, you speak as if having children were a casual whim rather than an integral part of life. Your crime analogy may provide an insight into your attitude towards birth and childrearing. It's that dismissive and even contemptuous attitude I was talking about. Parenting hold little value in a capitalistic society.
Whether you like it or not, birth and childrearing are essential to carrying on the species, therefore the instinct is difficult to suppress. Surely you don't suggest it is reasonable that women should give up having children altogether in the interest of a career?
You've also conveniently ignored the fact that the male, while equally responsible for the creation of the child, does not lose income as a result.
I suspect that if, in fact, birth and childrearing were a male responsibility, your attitude towards whether or not a society should support it might be entirely different. So if the dismissive attitude people hold towards parenting is because it's something women traditionally do, then the refusal of society to make reasonable allowances for it it is actually a poorly hidden form of gender discrimination.
So we're back to that.

[big_lefty]

Quote by: tivodan1116 So what you are saying is that women do exactly equal work for less pay? Yes or No?

What do you mean by "exactly equal"?
If it's the same job, is it not equal? Are you talking about quality of work or the nature of the job?

[The Bacon Guy]

Quote by: Left There is indeed a high demand for qualified child care workers, for example, and it is still a low paying job. So it's not as simple as you think. I wasn't claiming clients directly discriminate against female tradespeople. I'm saying that male dominated jobs, in general, hold more prestige and thus the higher pay rates have been accepted over time.

Hired childcare isn't essential. Plumbing, electricals etc. are. Hence, the latter can demand more pay because people have no choice.

Quote by: Left As to your other point, you speak as if having children were a casual whim rather than an integral part of life. Your crime analogy may provide an insight into your attitude towards birth and childrearing. It's that dismissive and even contemptuous attitude I was talking about. Parenting hold little value in a capitalistic society.

It's just an example, Left. You don't have to take every part of it literally and assume I consider child bearing to be a crime.

Quote by: Left Whether you like it or not, birth and childrearing are essential to carrying on the species, therefore the instinct is difficult to suppress. Surely you don't suggest it is reasonable that women should give up having children altogether in the interest of a career?

It depends what they want out of life, so it's entirely their choice. However, like I said, with choice comes responsibility.

Quote by: Left You've also conveniently ignored the fact that the male, while equally responsible for the creation of the child, does not lose income as a result. I suspect that if, in fact, birth and childrearing were a male responsibility, your attitude towards whether or not a society should support it might be entirely different.

Ad hominem speculation.

Quote by: Left So if the dismissive attitude people hold towards parenting is because it's something women traditionally do, then the refusal of society to make reasonable allowances for it it is actually a poorly hidden form of gender discrimination.

That's a big if. Other than to try to discredit it, I don't think you have any reason to believe that my stance would be any different were the gender roles reversed.

[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.

[Gods_Mercenary]

A case of unfortunate biology that is, though I wouldn't rule out the old boy's club mentality in many cases.

[Dan_77]

Quote by: big_lefty What do you mean by "exactly equal"? If it's the same job, is it not equal? Are you talking about quality of work or the nature of the job?

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?

[Dan_77]

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.

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.

[Rog]

Quote by: nerdvincent Astonishing. Male-female income disparity in the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Another example of wicked capitalism.

I know right! lets blame the goverment for everything...
you people need to get a grip!

[big_lefty]

Bacon Guy, please bear with me here because I haven't got the hang of quoting yet. I'll show your comments with quotation marks and your name.

Bacon:"Hired childcare isn't essential. Plumbing, electricals etc. are. Hence, the latter can demand more pay because people have no choice"

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?

Bacon: "It's just an example, Left. You don't have to take every part of it literally and assume I consider child bearing to be a crime."

Me; Okay. I tend to play shrink too much and look for hidden meanings. Slap me if get out of hand. ;-)


Bacon: "It depends what they want out of life, so it's entirely their choice. However, like I said, with choice comes responsibility."

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.

Bacon: "Ad hominem speculation."

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.

Bacon: "That's a big if. Other than to try to discredit it, I don't think you have any reason to believe that my stance would be any different were the gender roles reversed."

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.

Please note that I'm not trying to discredit you or insult you. Rationalizing is something we all do and we need other people to alert us when we slip into it.