Home › Forums › Open Discussion › left/right ? the battle of the chores and pay equity
- This topic is empty.
-
AuthorPosts
-
April 22, 2012 at 2:08 pm #602975
JoBParticipantI left this one in open discussion because i think it isn’t so much a political issue as a societal one…
http://www.economist.com/node/21553035?fsrc=scn/tw/te/ar/ironinglady
so does she do more at home because she is paid less..
or is she paid less because she has takes her responsibilities at home more seriously..
or.. is it moot..
and he just needs to get off his lazy ….
interesting question:)
April 22, 2012 at 2:09 pm #756053
JoBParticipantbtw..
i have no personal stake in this one.
I can no longer work so i have agreed to be our homemaker.
what i can’t do
i hire.
it works for us
i end up cleaning up after he cleans up anyway :(
April 22, 2012 at 2:26 pm #756054
SmittyParticipantAll I can say is that it is 50/50 in our house. We have a really good balance. I typically “do” mornings (get the kids ready for school, breakfast, pack lunch, clean the kitchen, etc) and my wife “does” the evenings (dinner, laundry and homework). It seems pretty fair – as it should be since we both work 40+ hours/week..
That said – I REALLY want to see a pay study that just does’t compare salaries between men and women in total/on average. I want to see what the pay gap is between a man and a woman who have the EXACT same job and have worked the EXACT same number of years. What is that pay gap? If it exists, then there are some inequities that need to be addressed.
Every study I see simply compares average wage. That is ridiculous. Men take different jobs (teachers are primarily women, for example), don’t take time off to have babies and raise kids, etc.
Do those studies exist?
April 22, 2012 at 3:04 pm #756055
JanSParticipantso, Smitty, here’s a question…should a woman be paid less for doing the same job as a man, similar qualifications (because exact does not exist), because she also takes time off to have the children, etc.?
and, as an aside…teaching should not be “woman’s work” in my book..some of my best teachers in high school and college were men…I wish it wasn’t a job that just attracted more females…men need to be nurturers , too.
April 22, 2012 at 3:19 pm #756056
JoBParticipantSmitty..
we nowhave two full generations of women who are as well if not better educated than their male peers who have entered the work force at the same age…
so the idea that men have better education and/or work histories is little more than an urban myth.
the studies that do look at educational levels conclude that women need a higher degree than men to make the same money.
high school/BA BA/Grad
and those are recent studies.
April 22, 2012 at 3:21 pm #756057
JoBParticipantwhat is still true is that men are better mentored in the working world than women…
but even that is changing.
that old it’s not what you know but who you know…
and maybe how you know them.. is far more prevalent than anyone wants to admit.
April 22, 2012 at 3:36 pm #756058
DBPMemberJan, in response to your question (#4), there are two ways to look at it.
You can consider what’s fair from the point of view of society at large, and you can consider what’s fair from the point of view of the employer and the woman’s coworkers.
A) From society’s point of view, we should be rewarding (not penalizing) working women who choose to take time off for kids, because we ALL need kids and we ALL benefit from the fact that SOME women are willing and able to bear them.
B) From the boss’s and coworker’s point of view, giving a woman a year or more off to raise kids seems unfair.
Let’s say I own a small but growing business and I’m looking to hire someone who will stick with the company and help it grow. In return for this loyalty, I’m willing to invest considerable time and resources in training this person.
Now then, suppose I’m presented with the option of hiring a 20-something man or hiring a 20-something woman. Both candidates are equally qualified for the job and, as of right now, both are equally apt. But to myself, I’m thinking:
This woman may need a year or more off in the next few years, or she might just decide to quit and raise a family. In either case, I’m screwed. I won’t be able to find someone to replace her for just a year, and if she leaves for good, then I’m out my investment in her.
**************************************************************************************
I’ll get to the coworker thing in another post, but let me ask you this: If you were the boss in this situation, whom would you hire? The young man or the young woman?
–David
April 23, 2012 at 1:05 am #756059
YeloRoseMemberTwo observations from a 40-something:
I began a career in federal law enforcement in the late 80’s. Because of federal regulations, the men that began their career at the same time were also paid the same amount. Differences in treatment usually showed up in case assignments and promotions.
When I look back at my female co-workers and friends of the same generation, none of them took one year off from work for a child. A few quit working outside the home while raising a family, but that was for a much longer time. Those that kept working usually only took three months or less after each birth, and that was spread over several years and only two or three kids.
April 23, 2012 at 3:28 am #756060
JanSParticipantDBP…what about what’s fair for the woman?
April 23, 2012 at 4:19 am #756061
DBPMemberWhat’s fair for the woman? Very good question, Jan.
Maybe it’s analogous to what Tracy Record says about Forum rules, namely, that we are allowed to tease/criticize people based on the choices they make, but not allowed to tease/criticize them for things that are beyond their control. So while we’re allowed to tease about religion (which is a choice) we are not allowed to tease about body type (which is not a choice.)
Carrying this idea forward . . . if you were to discriminate against a woman in the workplace based solely on her gender (which is not her choice) most people would agree that you are in the wrong. But if you were to discriminate against a woman for choosing to have a baby and take time off work, then maybe that’s another story.
I know, I know . . . there are so many problems with my argument . . .
In many European countries, they have resolved the work/parent dilemma by treating both mother and father as being equally important for child rearing. In Scandanavian countries, I believe, they give the mother AND father a year of government-sponsored, paid maternity/paternity leave for each child they have. But these countries also pay some pretty high taxes to finance that.
In a world of limited resources and relentless competition, one finds that there can be significant costs associated with being enlightened.
***************************************************************************************
P.S. Still owe you that drink.
April 23, 2012 at 4:25 am #756062
JanSParticipantA friend and I talked about this very thing today. So, should a woman be asked in an interview if she plans to have kids, if she is on birth control, etc.? Should that be a factor in hiring her? Paying her? After all, men can’t have the babies. Is this an unfair thing? You know, it used to be allowed to ask those questions. We thought we were beyond this…but..are we?
Sorry about not being there to collect that drink…a rare opportunity to go to Hood Canal took over my day…
April 23, 2012 at 4:26 am #756063
JanSParticipantoh, and I have always been for both the mother and father getting family leave at the birth of a child. It’s not just the woman’s job…both parents should be equals in taking care of the kids.
April 23, 2012 at 2:15 pm #756064
JoBParticipantDP
recently i read that it now takes two working parents to provide the same middle class lifestyle that one working parent used to provide.
if we eliminate one of those incomes, doesn’t that hurt the children?
April 23, 2012 at 3:57 pm #756065
BostonmanMemberI have hired both men and woman for varying levels of employment from $40k a year to $110k a year. Generally I don’t care if its a man or a woman I only care if they are qualified to do the job. I have hired 2 woman and 2 men at my current company and one of the woman did get pregnant. She claims she is coming back to work after 4 months so I will just hire a temp and see what happens.
At my house I make a pretty good salary and my wife is able to stay home with the 3 kids and one on the way and we can still pay all the bills and save money. So my wife does 75% of the cleaning and meal prep.
She doesn’t plan on staying home forever and has her masters in accounting so she will eventually go back to work. Hopefully she is treated fairly in the market.
As far as time off goes for child birth if you give parents time off then you are discriminating against people who aren’t married and won’t have kids by giving extra time off. That is why we have FMLA which is available to everyone.
April 23, 2012 at 11:56 pm #756066
KatherineLParticipantBostonman: Neither childbirth nor caring for a baby is vacation time. You’d have left out that argument if you’d spent a few months getting sleep only a couple of hours at a time.
But getting back to the original question of why women do more housework, I suggest it’s because their standards are different from men’s. Generally speaking – not always, I’m aware – a woman will jump up and clean something up because it bothers her. A man will sit down beside it and turn on the TV.
April 24, 2012 at 1:14 am #756067
DBPMember>>a woman will jump up and clean something up because it bothers her.
Yeah, but a woman will not jump up to mow the yard if it bothers her. Nor will she jump up to change the oil in the car. Men do a lot of stuff they don’t get credit for, and this is because they just do it, without making a big production.
I don’t know if this is still true, but women used to do most of the cooking, and men used to take that for granted. Shame on men.
*****************************************************************************************
JoB sayeth:
recently i read that it now takes two working parents to provide the same middle class lifestyle that one working parent used to provide.
Yeah, well that’s a bummer, isn’t it? But can you see a connection between that and the fact that between the 1960s and now the relative size of the workforce has doubled because of all the women jumping into the pool? It’s a simple matter of supply and demand: More people in the workforce = lower wages.
Careful what you pray for . . .
As far as the “middle class lifestyle” goes, I think a lot of people could still have that if they would just be a little more careful with their money. I see a lot of folks on middle-class incomes trying to live like they were rich folks. If they become impoverished as a result of that behavior, it’s hardly the boss’s fault . . .
April 24, 2012 at 2:09 am #756068
waterworldParticipantDBP sez:
f you were to discriminate against a woman in the workplace based solely on her gender (which is not her choice) most people would agree that you are in the wrong. But if you were to discriminate against a woman for choosing to have a baby and take time off work, then maybe that’s another story.
I don’t think it’s another story at all. Both state and federal law prohibit treating a woman differently because she is pregnant, or might get pregnant, or has medical conditions arising out of pregnancy. It’s just another way of discriminating based on sex. (There is an exception for businesses with fewer than 15 employees, because for very small companies, the financial pressure from workers taking long leaves is much worse than for larger companies, which can more easily distribute the workload.)
Most larger companies are careful to just avoid altogether issues like pregnancy, potential pregnancy, birth control, sexual orientation, religious affiliation, etc., when they interview and when they establish firm-wide policies.
April 24, 2012 at 2:15 pm #756069
JoBParticipantDP..
my hands hurt so much i can barely type today because i spent the day in the yard yesterday.
in spite of hiring a crew to do the spring cleaning in the yard
i was apparently hands on enough to to overdo
the oil gets changed and auto maintenance happens in my house when i take them to the mechanic…
and that’s true for both cars
i chose and purchased the lawn mower and the new weed whacker and the bbq and ….
i did all of that because it bothered me.
and i know plenty of women who do the same.
April 24, 2012 at 2:18 pm #756070
JoBParticipantDBP..
I am sorry to say this because i really like you
but this is about the most asinine thing i have ever heard you say
“Yeah, well that’s a bummer, isn’t it? But can you see a connection between that and the fact that between the 1960s and now the relative size of the workforce has doubled because of all the women jumping into the pool? It’s a simple matter of supply and demand: More people in the workforce = lower wages. “
that great sucking sound of the loss of manufacturing jobs in the good old USofA…
the jobs that a good portion of our middle class depended upon to fund their one working parent home
that couldn’t have anything to do with it, could it?
systemic union busting didn’t have anything to do with it either…
no… it’s women flooding the job market…
for the sake of our friendship
i am going to forget that you said that
April 24, 2012 at 7:05 pm #756071
DBPMemberJo . . . I hope this beautiful thing we have won’t be torn apart by some stupid quibble over macro-economics. But I think we need to talk.
Ω Yes, union busting plays a part in wage slippage.
Ω Yes, job sucking from Mexico and China play a part.
—But why? Isn’t it because these things have the effect of increasing the labor pool and thereby depressing wages?
So wouldn’t the same thing be true for women entering the labor force in large numbers in the last forty years?
Please don’t tell me you’re leaving me for kootchman. I don’t think I could take it . . .
April 25, 2012 at 2:18 pm #756072
JoBParticipantDBP
would you ask those who lost their jobs or just their living wage to outsourcing, abandoned factories or union busting to be careful what they ask for?
it might surprise you to learn that a good share of those two parent families who both have to work to provide for their families would love the luxury of having one parent in the home with their children.
Did i mention the fact that this is a luxury out of reach for an increasingly large segment of our population?
The fat cats on wall street who are crowing about the decline of the American work force would love us all to believe that the only factor at work here is an increasing labor pool…
after all.. to them productivity translates directly into profits which translates directly into stock prices which translates directly into cash in their pockets…
right up until the magic moment when the company fails because it no longer employs enough people to effectively manage the business of the company…
and a smart player can make money on the failure too.
Our job market is shrinking because America is in the business of making money.. not goods.. and certainly not services.
Have you tried lately to get service with your service?
-
AuthorPosts
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.