or Connect
Styleforum › Forums › General › Current Events, Power and Money › Trump is #2 in GOP Field
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Trump is #2 in GOP Field - Page 277

post #4141 of 8748
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gibonius View Post

You'll have to ask Ivanka why she brought it up.


On a related note though, there's a study moving around that discusses the issue with a little more complexity than the usual. Pretty good read, if you like economic and social policy analysis.

http://www.epi.org/publication/womens-work-and-the-gender-pay-gap-how-discrimination-societal-norms-and-other-forces-affect-womens-occupational-choices-and-their-pay/

Did you read it yourself? I skimmed through and realised how dumb this article is.. The study makes comparison on aggregate basis. It does not measure pay rates within the same profession and within the same functional area. Why does this study made to be so dumb?
I am certain there are gender pay-gaps and all sort of discrepancies in terms of equal pay . But this dumb article does not address any of it.
post #4142 of 8748
Quote:
Originally Posted by Medwed View Post

Did you read it yourself? I skimmed through and realised how dumb this article is.. The study makes comparison on aggregate basis. It does not measure pay rates within the same profession and within the same functional area. Why does this study made to be so dumb?
I am certain there are gender pay-gaps and all sort of discrepancies in terms of equal pay . But this dumb article does not address any of it.

That's included in the second section of the study, albeit briefly.

It's not really intended as a strict analysis of pay rates. The study is more intended to address why women move towards the fields that they move into, and how societal factors influence that.
post #4143 of 8748
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gibonius View Post

That's included in the second section of the study, albeit briefly.

It's not really intended as a strict analysis of pay rates. The study is more intended to address why women move towards the fields that they move into, and how societal factors influence that.

I would submit those factors have been changing for some time. Law and medical school? Pretty sure women make up more than 50% of med school spots and getting there in law, and particularly with medicine, these are viewed as society's highest prestige careers.

What the study doesn't mention is the huge influx of non-skilled immigrants. As we all know physical jobs get paid a premium due to their more risky nature it is not to be wondered at that low skill immigrant females get lower paying jobs than many of their equivalent male peers.

It's a really complex subject and a subject full of biases. Here's a case of bias in the researchers. I say this based on their framing:
Quote:
Again, this large gender pay gap between the highest earners is partially driven by gender bias. Harvard economist Claudia Goldin (2014) posits that high-wage firms have adopted pay-setting practices that disproportionately reward individuals who work very long and very particular hours. This means that even if men and women are equally productive per hour, individuals—disproportionately men—who are more likely to work excessive hours and be available at particular off-hours are paid more highly (Hersch and Stratton 2002; Goldin 2014; Landers, Rebitzer, and Taylor 1996).

"Disproportionately reward individuals" that work their asses off? Oh dear me.
post #4144 of 8748

Here's a paper from the Bureau of Economic Research (behind a paywall), but they find the gap has greatly shrunk since 1980, and most of the gap can be explained.  Women tend to not work as many hours, the industry/jobs they take tend to be lower paying, and they tend to have gaps in employment for child birth.  There is some speculation (not in this paper) that things like the family & medical leave act causes part of the gap.  Some of the gap is still unexplained and may be systematic bias.

 

http://www.nber.org/papers/w21913

post #4145 of 8748
Quote:
Originally Posted by wojt View Post

i always cringe where i hear equal pay
i mean what's the problem here? Should we force women to pick engineering studies instead of psychology, women studies and plethora of other useless degrees?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Gibonius View Post

You'll have to ask Ivanka why she brought it up.


On a related note though, there's a study moving around that discusses the issue with a little more complexity than the usual. Pretty good read, if you like economic and social policy analysis.

http://www.epi.org/publication/womens-work-and-the-gender-pay-gap-how-discrimination-societal-norms-and-other-forces-affect-womens-occupational-choices-and-their-pay/

The way Ivanka framed it was unpaid maternity leave.

Trump isn't my first choice but I couldn't imagine sitting home. I don't view the election as an opportunity to satisfy my personal beliefs. If I had to get either a finger cut off or an arm, I wouldn't say well they both suck so just do whatever. I'd rather have Trump than 8 years of Hillary with her appointing multiple justices.
post #4146 of 8748
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gibonius View Post

That's included in the second section of the study, albeit briefly.

It's not really intended as a strict analysis of pay rates. The study is more intended to address why women move towards the fields that they move into, and how societal factors influence that.

It is intended as a stupid article and it succeeds on every level. Making assumptions of discrimination from the start without providing a shred of evidence to support it. Looks like a usual fare written by esteemed scholars of liberal arts.
post #4147 of 8748
Quote:
Originally Posted by Piobaire View Post

What the study doesn't mention is the huge influx of non-skilled immigrants. As we all know physical jobs get paid a premium due to their more risky nature it is not to be wondered at that low skill immigrant females get lower paying jobs than many of their equivalent male peers.
I'd like to see a breakdown for some of the low paying professions like home health care providers, how many of them are immigrants.
Quote:
It's a really complex subject and a subject full of biases. Here's a case of bias in the researchers. I say this based on their framing:
"Disproportionately reward individuals" that work their asses off? Oh dear me.

I catch your meaning, but "disproportionate" doesn't necessary carry judgement (it probably does here though). It just means the scaling isn't linear.

The bigger point there still holds. There's this modern mythology that women can "have it all," but there's only so many hours in the week. If you want to have relationships, have a family, run a household, etc, something has to give. Women, as a general rule in our society, are still getting the balance of the hours spent on childcare, housework, etc, which precludes many of them from engaging in high powered careers. And if you do, there are consequences that don't really come into play for men.


A male doctor is a player in the dating market, can easily find a wife and have kids after the most intensive part of his career is done. That's not so easily done for women. That kind of stuff drives choices. There's nothing fundamentally wrong with that, but those are the kind of factors that come into play with big picture questions like this.
post #4148 of 8748
Quote:
Originally Posted by suited View Post

Trump isn't my first choice but I couldn't imagine sitting home. I don't view the election as an opportunity to satisfy my personal beliefs. If I had to get either a finger cut off or an arm, I wouldn't say well they both suck so just do whatever. I'd rather have Trump than 8 years of Hillary with her appointing multiple justices.

 

I don't honestly thing there is a difference.  What policies do the two support that are different?  Both are anti-free trade, and neither respects private property rights.  Both are talking increase in minimum wage and more paid leave laws, etc.  Both want to bomb more foreign countries, both want to limit free speech and increase warrant-less surveillance.  Both want to limit gun ownership.

 

I'm so sick of this team red vs team blue mentality.  They're both awful.  They're both the worst candidates ever, and we're never going to get better because millions of people will still go to the polls in November and vote exactly for the reason you to describe.

post #4149 of 8748
Also, let us not forget biology "isn't fair." Women have the babies. Also, and I don't have data to support this, but I think the average man ages better in terms of physical functioning, than the average woman meaning he can work at a higher level longer.

This is one of those things where I think we can work towards equalization but have to admit there might be some valid reasons why things will never be 1:1 or at least until we cease having babies the biological way.

As far as healthcare...women really are the majority up and down the pay scale. I've had one male boss in my healthcare career as an example.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gibonius View Post

I'd like to see a breakdown for some of the low paying professions like home health care providers, how many of them are immigrants.
I catch your meaning, but "disproportionate" doesn't necessary carry judgement (it probably does here though). It just means the scaling isn't linear.

The bigger point there still holds. There's this modern mythology that women can "have it all," but there's only so many hours in the week. If you want to have relationships, have a family, run a household, etc, something has to give. Women, as a general rule in our society, are still getting the balance of the hours spent on childcare, housework, etc, which precludes many of them from engaging in high powered careers. And if you do, there are consequences that don't really come into play for men.


A male doctor is a player in the dating market, can easily find a wife and have kids after the most intensive part of his career is done. That's not so easily done for women. That kind of stuff drives choices. There's nothing fundamentally wrong with that, but those are the kind of factors that come into play with big picture questions like this.
post #4150 of 8748
Quote:
Originally Posted by brokencycle View Post

Here's a paper from the Bureau of Economic Research (behind a paywall), but they find the gap has greatly shrunk since 1980, and most of the gap can be explained.  Women tend to not work as many hours, the industry/jobs they take tend to be lower paying, and they tend to have gaps in employment for child birth.  There is some speculation (not in this paper) that things like the family & medical leave act causes part of the gap.  Some of the gap is still unexplained and may be systematic bias.

http://www.nber.org/papers/w21913

That paper was actually one of the citations in the one I posted.

It's an interesting question, because as the study I posted gets into, career choice is hugely influenced by your life circumstances and then hugely influences your life. It's tied into everything in our society, which obviously makes it a complex question to examine.


It's also interesting to me how reactionary some people get about it. You mention wage gaps and the usual suspects are tripping over themselves to shout down the study (without reading it, apparently). Even if you want to write off the whole thing as "women making choices," you'd think it might be interesting to look at why those choices are made.
post #4151 of 8748
Quote:
Originally Posted by brokencycle View Post

I don't honestly thing there is a difference.  What policies do the two support that are different?  Both are anti-free trade, and neither respects private property rights.  Both are talking increase in minimum wage and more paid leave laws, etc.  Both want to bomb more foreign countries, both want to limit free speech and increase warrant-less surveillance.  Both want to limit gun ownership.

I'm so sick of this team red vs team blue mentality.  They're both awful.  They're both the worst candidates ever, and we're never going to get better because millions of people will still go to the polls in November and vote exactly for the reason you to describe.

It's funny with free trade though, both the Sanders crowd and the Trump crowd are bashing her for being too free trade. Not sure where she'll really come out on that.


The Red Team/Blue Team thing though, that gets stuck back into the two-party system dynamic. There's a huge psychological incentive to "make your vote matter", and it's going to be hard to see a third party ever win unless there's a structural change. Even if you hate both of the major party options, it feels rational to pick the one you hate less rather than a protest vote for a third party.
post #4152 of 8748
Quote:
Originally Posted by brokencycle View Post

I don't honestly thing there is a difference.  What policies do the two support that are different? 

One of them is guaranteed to stack the supreme court with leftists who will radically transform our judiciary for a generation. The other...might...not. If you care about these things, that's worth a vote right there.
post #4153 of 8748
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ataturk View Post


One of them is guaranteed to stack the supreme court with leftists who will radically transform our judiciary for a generation. The other...might...not. If you care about these things, that's worth a vote right there.



Trump endorsed Kelo v. New London as one of the best SCOTUS decisions of all time.  If that is any indication of who he'll nominate for SCOTUS, they aren't any better.  Plus, the Republicans might just block all SCOTUS nominations for 8 years if it  is Hillary.

post #4154 of 8748

With all the pictures of Trump at the convention, I can't help but think "If he would just tailor his suit sleeves to be the right length, he might not be accused of having small hands as much."

post #4155 of 8748
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Current Events, Power and Money
Styleforum › Forums › General › Current Events, Power and Money › Trump is #2 in GOP Field