Home › Forums › Open Discussion › when celebrities speak..
- This topic is empty.
-
AuthorPosts
-
February 26, 2015 at 8:54 pm #822123
JanSParticipantok, smitty…are you saying that inequality for women is grossly exaggerated? I am asking to make sure that is NOT what I’m hearing from you…
February 26, 2015 at 9:36 pm #822124
anonymeParticipantI’d have to watch it again, but I’m pretty sure that Patricia Arquette said nothing about the .77 “lie”. And Smitty, I’ve gotta say that I’m getting the distinct impression that you weren’t turned away – simply because you were never there to begin with.
February 26, 2015 at 10:13 pm #822125
SmittyParticipant“ok, smitty…are you saying that inequality for women is grossly exaggerated?”
No. Saying that the number they throw out there is though (.77/dollar) is wrong(as detailed above) and it is closer to 5%. NOT GOOD and it should be EQUAL, but a big difference between 23% and 5%.
” I’m pretty sure that Patricia Arquette said nothing about the .77 “lie””
You are correct. She did however reference it in follow up tweets. So did the White House.
“I’ve gotta say that I’m getting the distinct impression that you weren’t turned away – simply because you were never there to begin with.”
Working wife, two sisters, a daughter and raised by a single mother. I’m there.
February 26, 2015 at 11:02 pm #822126
anonymeParticipantSmitty, thank you for that clarification. I’m actually with you on several points. (I cringed at Jared Leto’s “Je suis Charlie” at the Golden Globes.) It’s just that I don’t think you can accurately describe inequality with some averaged out percentages, and I doubt that 5% vs. 23% does anything at all to shed light on a complex subject.
As a single parent in the 70’s, landlords viewed me as the equivalent of a prostitute, and decent housing was almost impossible to find – as was anything approaching a living wage. I was told straight out by employers that I didn’t need to earn as much as a man, and I should get married if I didn’t like it. The same employer would insist that I sit on his lap while I filled out the application.
Have things changed? A bit. But like all forms of discrimination, it can be a dirty, sneaky business and there is very little truth revealed in statistics.
February 26, 2015 at 11:36 pm #822127
JanSParticipant^^^^what she said….
February 26, 2015 at 11:38 pm #822128
JanSParticipantno, Smitty, you think you’re there. You will never be *there* secondhand…
February 26, 2015 at 11:52 pm #822129
Jd seattleParticipantThe percentage may not be important but the way one comes up with the percentage is. If you want to battle wage inequality for women you have to use facts that present true inequality. A lot of people don’t follow political subjects and only hear the big slogans and headlines. When that .77 number gets put out there and it is debunked so quickly and easily it makes a lot people write that movement off for being disingenuous. 5% is still a big deal and can’t be disputed so easily. I think using that number eliminates a lot of ammo for the opposition and works better in the long run
February 27, 2015 at 2:42 am #822130
SmittyParticipant^^^^What he(?) said….
February 27, 2015 at 2:44 am #822131
SmittyParticipant“no, Smitty, you think you’re there. You will never be *there* secondhand…”
Dang it.
Does that mean my facts don’t count now?
February 27, 2015 at 3:42 am #822132
JTBParticipantAre we to believe the people demanding exact, precise, definitive numbers for the gender based wage gap are by and large in support of equal pay but just don’t know if there is enough of a disparity to think we need to act on the matter?
Are we to believe there is some number than would compel these people to support measures to remedy the disparity?
Or are we to wonder if these people even think this is a matter that deserves corrective action?
February 27, 2015 at 5:16 am #822133
Jd seattleParticipantJTB- that’s not what I’m trying to say, maybe this is a better way to explain my point. The two numbers in question do not represent how much inequality is happening, they represent what we consider inequality to be. We have two different formulas being used here.
1- 77% = total money all men make vs. total money all women make.
This number does not take into account the fact that on average women choose lower paying careers. They also are more likely to take up a more family supportive role after becoming parents. Nor does it account for career, experience, job title, etc. Men also on average work more hours than women.
2- 2% – 8% ( this number varies) = this figure accounts for all of those factors #1 did not. Essentially a woman and a man doing the same job, same experience, same qualifications yet the man makes more.
The fight for women’s equal pay has to define what inequality is before we can come up with solutions to fix it. Personally I see #2 as inequality, not #1. Sure there are stereotypes and cultural issues that steer women away from certain careers, but I’m not sure how you correct that in a political fashion. That’s why I put some importance on the numbers, either the 77%’s are considering #1 inequality or they are trying to use a larger number to exaggerate the issue.
February 27, 2015 at 3:40 pm #822134
JoBParticipantJD
women do not “choose” lower paying careers..
they take what is on offer
you might ask yourself if you would choose to work at a lower paying career if you had the option to make more money?
the don’t “choose” to take on the family supportive role..
they are left with little choice when their male partners choose not to do the work
someone has to clean the house and stock the pantry and make sure the kids are cared for…
most women start their second job when they arrive home from work :(
you might ask yourself how you would choose to spend your “free” time?
women are not some strange incomprehensible creatures who choose to work for less money and take on the bulk of family responsibilities …
women are rational people just like men and just like men..they wouldn’t choose to make less and do more if they had better choices.
wage inequality is actually something you fellas should be more concerned about
because every woman hired at less than market wage lowers the market wage for men…
all stereotypes aside..
that’s not a reality anyone should support
February 27, 2015 at 4:38 pm #822135
Jd seattleParticipantJob- when we have statistical numbers showing more women choose degrees in college that are typically lower paying careers, then yes, they have definitely made a choice to do so. Unless you are telling me someone is forcing women to get degrees they don’t want.
And are you saying all or even most women take up the family role because their husbands art too lazy to do it? That’s a bold statement.
Picking a career that you know going in that pays less money for everybody is completely different than working the same job as a man and getting paid less.
I do care about inequality JoB, just true inequality. I’m not sure I understand. Are you saying a female target worker should get paid the same as a male Longshorman? Because that’s pretty much what the %77 number comes from. Or should the female target worker get paid the same as the male target worker? That I’m with you on.
February 27, 2015 at 4:43 pm #822136
SmittyParticipantThis is a perfect example of why internet message board discussions are borderline futile.
Jd, you could not have made it any more clear.
Women historically migrate toward lower paying professions (teachers, for example are heavily weighted toward women). Teaching – as compared to other PROFESSIONS has lower wages. Therefore, that will bring “down” the average salary for ALL PROFESSIONS. Thus the .77/dollar number. However, when looking at JUST THE TEACHING PROFESSION there is nowhere near that discrepancy.
JoB, if you think that the inequality argument revolves around women being “forced” or led into lower paying professions, that’s great. Let’s discuss. But, what this discussion is about is the 77/dollar “math” and how it is abused to make people think that is the norm WITHIN professions.
February 27, 2015 at 4:57 pm #822137
dobroParticipant“Women historically migrate toward lower paying professions (teachers, for example are heavily weighted toward women).”
I know this is an argument about statistics, but this kind of statement is one that muddies the waters considerably.
Historically speaking, women were only allowed in certain professions for the majority of the 20th century (you may remember they weren’t even allowed to vote at one point). this historical fact is going to skew a lot of these “statistical” arguments. If everyone agrees that there is a problem (which it seems everyone does) a more interesting discussion would be on what we can do to solve it.
February 27, 2015 at 5:38 pm #822138
wakefloodParticipantDon’t we all wish, Dobro? Unfortunately, the GOP’s first step in any issue is to deny it exists. This step lasts anywhere from 5yrs to infinity.
Once it becomes patently obvious to the vast majority that there’s an issue, they move to step two which is buy data that “disproves” or at least casts doubt on it. Preferably making the argument, whenever possible, that the victims are indeed the cause of whatever is going on. This step lasts for as much as forever years.
Then, after something has been done over their loud objections to mitigate the problem, they work tirelessly to unfix it. Abortion, civil and voting rights, anyone?
Such an enlightened perspective!
February 27, 2015 at 7:08 pm #822139
Jd seattleParticipantA discussion to solve the issue would be more interesting. We need to first agree on what the issue is.
Are we trying to make all women in the U.S. earn the same combined wage total as all combined wages for men? Regardles of any of the legitimate factors we know are there?
Or are we trying to make it so women make the same as men when working the same job with the same credentials?
February 28, 2015 at 4:01 pm #822140
TanDLParticipantThis reminds me of seeing “The Dress” on the internet – Different people seeing different colors and interpretations of the light that comes through their personal lens of perception.
The OP posts links to two speeches that seem inspiring regarding inequality and civil obedience/disobedience. Discussion begins.
Poster at #5 then says, “A lot of people think women make $0.77 on the dollar for the same job, with the same experience and the same education too.” The discussion then dives into wage inequality for women with the Post #5 person insisting the .77 statistic was incorrect for so many reasons.
I post in #11 a Wall St Journal article with Labor Dept. charts in which I see wage inequality in almost all professions in the U.S. as women statistically make less than men darned near across every industry board. Poster #5 sees the same article and charts as proof that the $.77 statement was incorrect, even though Poster #5 was the only person who brought the $.77 up. Poster #5 even exhorts the original OP in #39 to stick to the $.77 discussion that he brought up in the 5th post, as that’s the thread course direction he prefers.
Well, here’s my $.02 take on it all. A woman walks into a gold shop with a gold chain to sell. A gentleman walks in behind her with the exact same chain – same weight, size and appearance – and they sell their chains at the same time for market value. He is given $1 more for his chain, simply because he is a man, no other reason. It’s only a dollar, so what’s the big deal? Maybe she bought it from a discount house – maybe it was a gift and she paid nothing for it so what’s she complaining about? It’s money she never had in the first place. Maybe people are saying that her losing a dollar isn’t viewing the situation correctly – according to market valuations and calculations she probably only lost a grand total of $.43, not a whole dollar like everyone assumes. The scenario can be convoluted, calculated and spun four ways to the wind, but the overall facts are really simple.
The woman receives less for no other reason than who she is and that makes her frustrated and angry. And rightly so in my eyes. Whether it’s a dime less or 50% less, it’s less for absolutely no other reason than she’s female. So, to begin correcting this situation, I propose an immediate 30% cut in all male salaries and an immediate 30% raise in all female salaries for 5 years so that working men can experience the same discrimination, anger and frustration that working females have been living with for decades. Wouldn’t that be fun?
February 28, 2015 at 4:09 pm #822141
JoBParticipantFebruary 28, 2015 at 4:12 pm #822142
JoBParticipantJD
you didn’t answer my question
Would you choose to work for less money?
if you wouldn’t, what makes you think that women would?
the ugly truth is that some of us don’t have the same choices that others do…
When your only choice is between making less and making nothing you “choose” less
but the fault lies not in your choice but in your options.
your assumptions deny that reality
February 28, 2015 at 4:13 pm #822143
JoBParticipantSmitty..
there has always been one undeniable way to close the gap between the amount of housekeeping done by men and women in two job households.
men could simply offer to do more.
it really is that simple.
February 28, 2015 at 5:25 pm #822144
Jd seattleParticipantJob – yes, I chose to work for less money. I chose to make less than a doctor because I didn’t get degree in that field. I chose to make less than a mechanical engineer because I didn’t get a degree engineering. I chose to make less than an airline pilot because I never learned how to fly.
I,me,myself knew what people were getting paid in my field when I began pursuing it. So I don’t complain when the obvious happens, people who chose higher paying careers make more money than me.
Stop with this ridiculous notion that women somehow have no choice in what field of work they go into. You do know that more women get degrees than men don’t you? Who is making these women pick their current degrees? According to you they have not, someone else did.
And when I said women take up the more family supportive role after child birth that was meaning time off, part time, or leaving work for a period of time. If both are working full time and only one is doing the house work that is a problem. One that is not exclusive to women as you seem to imply.
TanDL – your analogy with the gold shop is a perfect representation of inequality. Your gold chains represent a job/career right? Because what JoB is advocating would be the equivalent of the women walking in with one gold chain (let’s say a teacher). The man walks in with two gold chains (let’s say a doctor), are we supposed to be outraged the man gets more money for his two chains than the women does for her one. The women knew what teachers made when she chose that field. Nothing stopped her from becoming a doctor. Let’s compair apples to apples here and then talk about a solution to the real problem everyone has acknowledged.
February 28, 2015 at 5:55 pm #822145
miwsParticipantOkay, I admit I haven’t checked out every link, so perhaps this originates from one of them, but how did this thread get hung up on “…male doctor vs. female teacher…”, etc,
Didn’t this discussion start out as the basic fact of income inequality, presumably between identical jobs; doctor, teacher, whatever, and presuming again, equal education, level of experience, type of doctor/teacher?
Mike
February 28, 2015 at 5:58 pm #822146
yes2wsParticipantFrom Singular..
“The .77 is not bogus and in my experience was worse. As someone who managed in the corporate minefield, there wasn’t one time when my male directs’ salaries were revealed to me that they were not *drastically* higher than my own and their female peers. This observation takes into account education, experience, and the then-current parameters of performance, project impact, etc. The wage gap is real.”
From Smitty..
“Got it. Disregard the Department of Labor study that equalizes for the oft mentioned variables and claims the real disparity is between 5 and 7% and go with singularnames real-world experience.
Discussion over. Thread closed.”
From Jd seattle..
“Or are we trying to make it so women make the same as men when working the same job with the same credentials?”
My observation..
Jd, I think you had your answer in Singular’s post; only, it got muddled with Smitty’s flippant reply.
February 28, 2015 at 6:05 pm #822147
Jd seattleParticipantMike – it got hung up on that because some here refuse to acknowledge what the .77 number is derived from. It does not represent inequality. It simply points out all men in the U.S. combined make more than all women combined. Regardless of legitimate reasons that have nothing to do with inequality. If they continue to support that number then one can assume they want equal wages for everyone regardless of career, degree, time on the job, etc.
-
AuthorPosts
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.