Home › Forums › Open Discussion › when celebrities speak..
- This topic is empty.
-
AuthorPosts
-
March 6, 2015 at 3:20 pm #822248
JoBParticipantThe fact that the stats in the Uniteds States aren’t as bad as those worldwide is little to be proud of…
March 6, 2015 at 3:31 pm #822249
JoBParticipantand last..but not least..
supporting feminism is good for men in ways they can truly appreciate
” Couples who share chores equally have more sex. As the researchers Constance T. Gager and Scott T. Yabiku put it, men and women who work hard play hard. One of us, Sheryl, has advised men that if they want to do something nice for their partners, instead of buying flowers, they should do laundry.”
lean in.. it pays off equally in the board room and at home ;-)
March 6, 2015 at 3:56 pm #822250
SmittyParticipantMarch 6, 2015 at 6:18 pm #822251
Jd seattleParticipantJoB – did you only read the first half of my last post? Did you not notice the two questions I followed up with?
Yes more men are working than women. So I’m saying we should discus why that is and is it mostly do to prejudices against women?
Yes women tend to work in lower paid fields/careers. So we should discuss why that is and is and is it mostly due to prejudices against women?
March 6, 2015 at 9:34 pm #822252
JanSParticipantanother celebrity speaks…oh, my…and this is about inequalities re:women on a global stage…thanks to a good friend for sharing this with me…it’s things you may not realize. Will this stop any of you from listening to music, like not watching award shows? Yep, didn’t think so…
March 6, 2015 at 10:53 pm #822253
SmittyParticipant“another celebrity speaks”
Good for her. Great cause and a great platform to communicate it.
“Will this stop any of you from listening to music, like not watching award shows?”
Music? No way. Movies? Never. Awards Shows? Tuned out decades ago. I don’t watch the Oscars to learn about the latest cause any more than I watch football to have Tebow give god credit for his victory.
But that’s just me.
March 7, 2015 at 2:25 am #822254
JoBParticipantJD..
what part of people employed at lower wages are far more likely to be employed part time because that allows their employer to escape mandates for benefits for full time workers don’t you get?
that lower wage thing translates to lower hours which translates to fewer benefits which translates directly to the taxpayer picking up the tab.
For that reason alone, everyone should be screaming for both pay equity and a raise in the minimum wage.
March 7, 2015 at 3:05 am #822255
Jd seattleParticipantJoB – I don’t know what argument you think we are having here but your responses make zero sense in relation to my questions and statements. Soo… That’s what I don’t get.
March 7, 2015 at 4:25 am #822256
JoBParticipantJd..
let me do this your way..
We can agree that women work fewer hours on the average than men because women are more often employed in low wage jobs where their employers have a financial incentive to not give them full time work.
understand better now?
March 7, 2015 at 6:25 am #822257
Jd seattleParticipantJoB – yes, I got it the first time. What I dont get is the need to address direct questions with unrelated answers. But sure I’ll bite.
“We can agree that women work fewer hours on the average than men because women are more often employed in low wage jobs where their employers have a financial incentive to not give them full time work.”
I agree that is a factor. I don’t agree that most women who work part time do it for that reason. I also don’t agree that is the whole reason women work fewer hours.
March 7, 2015 at 8:47 am #822258
JanSParticipantso, Jd, tell us why you think women work fewer hours……enlighten us…
March 7, 2015 at 5:06 pm #822259
JoBParticipantJd..
ROFLOL..
said the guy who helped derail a topic with unrelated answers to questions that were never asked and statements that were never made…
;-> ;->
“I agree that is a factor. I don’t agree that most women who work part time do it for that reason. I also don’t agree that is the whole reason women work fewer hours.”
some women do choose to work fewer hours.
surprisingly, so do some men
but you choose to believe that the majority of women who work fewer hours do so because of choice ..
ignoring the evidence that women comprise more than 50% of the minimum wage workforce in every state except Nevada and Kansas where they are only half the workforce..
http://www.nwlc.org/resource/women-and-minimum-wage-state-state
the reality lies somewhere between 60 and 75% depending upon the state..
“Today, the federal minimum wage is just $7.25 per hour, and full-time earnings of $14,500 a year leave a family of three thousands of dollars below the federal poverty line. Twenty-nine states and the District of Columbia currently have minimum wages above the federal level, but in every state, the minimum wage leaves a full-time worker with two children at or below the poverty level.”
“In 2013, 75.9 million workers age 16 and older in the
United States were paid at hourly rates, representing
58.8 percent of all wage and salary workers. Among
those paid by the hour, 1.5 million earned exactly the
prevailing federal minimum wage of $7.25 per hour.
About 1.8 million had wages below the federal minimum.”
http://www.bls.gov/cps/minwage2013.pdf
those who make wages below the federal minimum are predominately women employed in exempted wage categories.. which trend towards female workers unless you examine high end hospitality jobs where workers make substantial tips..
then they tend towards predominantly male workers..
buried on page 4 of this document is some interesting info.. on how minimum wage or less jobs break down in age and gender categories.. and between full and part time workers.
connecting the dots isn’t so very difficult…
you may want to talk about the validity of the 77% number…
but i want to talk about the effect wage inequality.. and inequality in general.. is having on our society and on our economy.
You might ask yourself why you think what you want to talk about is more relevant.
March 7, 2015 at 5:51 pm #822260
Jd seattleParticipant“ROFLOL..
said the guy who helped derail a topic with unrelated answers to questions that were never asked and statements that were never made…
;-> ;->”
Why don’t you go back and read the first page. .77 was brought up on what, post 5? I didn’t even mention the number .77 until post 32. .77 appeared in 11 posts before I said anything about it. So it was clearly the topic of discussion when I showed up.
“you may want to talk about the validity of the 77% number…
but i want to talk about the effect wage inequality.. and inequality in general.. is having on our society and on our economy.
You might ask yourself why you think what you want to talk about is more relevant”
What? Here’s my last questions?
“1 – what are the reasons more men are working than women? Are those reasons unjust/prejudice?
2 – what are the reasons women tend to be in lower paying fields/careers? Are those reasons unjust/prejudice?
I don’t see anything about .77 in those questions.
March 7, 2015 at 7:44 pm #822261
JTBParticipantI believe we are seeing how marvelously compliant people are to the real inequality in this system. While we have been quibbling about how to measure and account for the difference between pay scales for men and women, nothing has been said about the real inequality in this system which has been steadily manipulated in the last forty years to favor the elite.
Doesn’t bode particularly well for doing anything meaningful to remedy that, does it?
For a very long period of US history, women were less represented in the workforce than men and began gradually entering it as single income families became increasingly hard-pressed to maintain a desirable standard of living. It’s not a matter of just/unjust as much as how something incrementally evolves as people respond to changes in their living conditions.
There is a sharper,undoubtedly more accurate accounting of this in Gail Sheehy’s “When Everything Changed, The History of the Women’s Movement from 1960 to the Present.” I don’t have it handy so can’t draw from her excellent discussion which pertains directly to this topic. But I encourage anyone interested in understanding how economic issues helped drive the women’s movement to check it out.
Post WWII, women who had picked up the slack in industrial production returned to their traditional roll of WORKING in the house, a task that prior to the rise of consumer appliances, was indeed demanding. It was generally possible for single income families to maintain an acceptable standard of living. As running a household became less labor intensive, women had more available time and many sought to ward off boredom by taking outside jobs. This trend became noticeable in the early 1960’s. The work tended toward part time employment, most of which were lower paying to start with—-secretarial, clerical, etc.
But by the 1970’s economic conditions changed and more families needed additional income to maintain the same standard of living. Men picked up additional part time work and more women entered the workforce, initially looking for part time work and then increasingly seeking out full time positions. When women began competing directly with men for jobs, they were vulnerable and susceptible to accepting lower pay. We can discuss the natural tendency of management to exploit that situation at some other time since I don’t think that should be surprising to anyone. I imagine the gender based wage discrimination was less prominent in union shops (not that there wasn’t a transition to accept women even in many unions).
Over time, women have gradually made headway against the embedded sexism and discrimination which has judged them unsuited for certain work—engineering, architecture, business management, etc. It’s not surprising that pay scales for women in those sectors would lag, given the nature of employers’ preference for paying less rather than more when given the opportunity.
So I believe we are faced with the uneven outcomes as the workplace, as this system, has contended over a period of time with the need of the populace for employment capable of sustaining a decent life. The American Dream.
Clearly the system is working well for the elites right now. It’s just not doing nearly as well for ordinary people. And we’re quibbling about why women are fed up with getting the short end of the stick? In general, whenever there is a systematic discrimination, any move to weaken it or gain an advance is considered to be positive and deserving of support because of the (hopefully not naive) notion that it will gradually and eventually improve conditions for everyone (well perhaps not for those benefitting from the discrimination).
There is a concept used by economists and political scientists known as the “unexplained wage gap” which is described at the Center fro American Progress as follows:
“More than 40 percent of the gender wage gap is “unexplained,” meaning that there is no obvious measurable reason for a difference in pay. This leaves us with possible explanations that range from overt sexism to unintentional gender-based discrimination to reluctance among women to negotiate for higher pay.”
So if we can’t agree about the particulars around the 60% difference for one industry, or one level of employment, etc. perhaps we should simply go after the 40% due to simple discrimination and stop tolerating it. Or does that have to be quantified more precisely in order to reach a “give a s*&t threshold?
March 7, 2015 at 8:23 pm #822262
SmittyParticipant“”More than 40 percent of the gender wage gap is “unexplained,” meaning that there is no obvious measurable reason for a difference in pay.”
That is exactly what we have been saying. 40% of the 20 cent difference is “unexplained”. That means 8 cents. (.4 x .20) on every dollar is unexplained. Not the 20 (or 23 parroted by the White House, super-smart celebrities and the media) cents people keep spouting.
And YES, YES, YES this is unacceptable – BUT even the study linked by liberal think progress states the final 8 cents is a mix of willingness to take fewer hours for better benefits, weaker negotiating skills and YES – discrimination.
March 7, 2015 at 9:00 pm #822263
JTBParticipantSmitty,
I made a mistake-the quote came from the progressive Center For American Progress, not Think Progress. I’ve edited my post to correct that.
The entire paragraph I quoted from reads:
“But what causes the remaining gap of more than 10 cents on the dollar—or $4,465 per year among workers making the median wage—between men and women? This is less clear but perhaps more troubling. More than 40 percent of the gender wage gap is “unexplained,” meaning that there is no obvious measurable reason for a difference in pay. This leaves us with possible explanations that range from overt sexism to unintentional gender-based discrimination to reluctance among women to negotiate for higher pay.”
There is no suggestion this is due to a willingness to take fewer hours for better benefits; that has been accounted for. What remains is discrimination. I concede we must include a willingness not to negotiate aggressively for higher wages. As been noted in many other settings, a sign of the effectiveness of any system of discrimination is the degree to which the exploited accommodate to it.
So tell me again, what is more important, quibbling about the adequacy of comparing the average medium wage for full time male and female workers or doing something about the many instances which contribute to that value?
March 7, 2015 at 9:29 pm #822264
SmittyParticipant“So tell me again, what is more important, quibbling about the adequacy of comparing the average medium wage for full time male and female workers or doing something about the many instances which contribute to that value?”
The latter. Please inform the White House, the media and the celebrity-elite…..:~)
March 7, 2015 at 11:37 pm #822265
JoBParticipantSmitty..
unexplained is the explanation for the part of the gender wage gap that they can’t find any excuse for…
not that which doesn’t exist.
March 8, 2015 at 3:59 am #822266
JTBParticipantSmitty, No, I was thinking more in terms of what are YOU going to do to help move things forward. I’m not persuaded that simply criticizing the accuracy of numbers that in any event convey a general problem is helpful.
In any case, my longer post was intended more as a response to the issues Jd raised.
March 8, 2015 at 3:55 am #822267
JanSParticipantI love the way some posters simply dismiss what the OP on this thread is saying/asking, etc…and I am cynical enough (sometimes more than enough) to think it’s because of gender…and that sucks for me. :(
March 8, 2015 at 2:59 pm #822268
SmittyParticipantNot sure anyone is dismissing anything. Just trying to get the facts straight.
171 posts proves it is difficult at times to even prove 1+1=2. How on earth will we ever agree on anything if we can’t even agree on facts.
On a positive note, I think there are probably only four or five people still reading this thread! :~)
March 8, 2015 at 3:49 pm #822269
JoBParticipantSmitty..
and what exactly are THE facts?
i have posted plenty of facts but you seem to ignore everything except the 77% figure
i don’t believe you are doing so to be intentionally sexist..
but it does appear that you think if you can find one flaw you can dismiss the entire argument.
it doesn’t really work like that
March 8, 2015 at 3:58 pm #822270
waynsterParticipantNo I still look at the thread and shake my head in disbelief that there are those in this thread that still have a hard time with gender equality… is this the 19th and 20th century’s its time to get with the program and out of the denial stage.. women are our equals.. best get with the program guys or be left in the dust like the dinosaurs….cavemen…
http://www.cnn.com/2015/03/06/europe/emma-watson-he-for-she-international-womens-day/index.html
March 8, 2015 at 4:39 pm #822271
SmittyParticipant“And YES, YES, YES this is unacceptable “
Not sure what part of ^^^^^^ is so difficult to understand?
March 8, 2015 at 5:11 pm #822272
miwsParticipantI’m still reading this, and like waynster am shaking my head.
I’ve come thisclose to commenting again, and perhaps somewhat snarkily, as I otherwise would just be repeating myself.
And This is a longtime peeve of mine…….
but it does appear that you think if you can find one flaw you can dismiss the entire argument.
“We can’t [Fill in the Blank], because of this[Fill in the Blank] flaw…”
So often, that “flaw” is so minor, and inconsequential, that it seems that it being brought up as a stall tactic, and perhaps is actually showing some prejudice, from those bringing the flaw up.
For chrissake, let’s get a start on correcting and improving [whatever issue], and then modify and evolve the legislation/law/whatever, as time goes on.
(waynster, besides a stiff neck, do you have a bruised forehead as well?)
Mike
-
AuthorPosts
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.