or Connect
Styleforum › Forums › General › Current Events, Power and Money › I need feminism because tumblr
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

I need feminism because tumblr - Page 171

post #2551 of 5616
Quote:
Originally Posted by ethanm View Post

Today I read that the attractive/unattractive income gap is comparable to the male/female gap.

Finally pio has a social justice cause he can join!

Link please
post #2552 of 5616
Quote:
Originally Posted by tesseract View Post


Link please


It was on the screen in the elevator in my building :satisfied: 

 

I wonder if results are skewed by celebrities. 

post #2553 of 5616
Quote:
Originally Posted by ethanm View Post


It was on the screen in the elevator in my building satisfied.gif  

I wonder if results are skewed by celebrities. 
Whatever, elevator privilege.
post #2554 of 5616
Quote:
Originally Posted by ethanm View Post

Today I read that the attractive/unattractive income gap is comparable to the male/female gap.

Finally pio has a social justice cause he can join!

I am fine with my attractiveness privilege and I've read much data indicating when confounders are properly accounted for the male/female pay gap is a matter of pennies.
post #2555 of 5616
22 pennies, give or take?
post #2556 of 5616
Quote:
Originally Posted by whiteslashasian View Post

22 pennies, give or take?

It all depends on how one reviews the data. Yes, 78 cents on the dollar is the generally accepted number for the "gender pay gap" but that is a really shitty number. AFAIK it just basically takes all the female respondents in the study, and creates an average female wage, then does the same for all the males in the study. I'm sure you can see the multitude of suck surrounding this raw comparison. It takes no account for what job you hold, tenure, etc. It's a truly shitty number.

Now, one can drill down more and find men in the same profession tend to (tend to,mind you) earn more. At first blush this is also oh so damning but then we need to think of things like women leaving and entering the workforce far more than men (thus a 45 year old man tends to have more years of experience vs. a 45 year old woman), men being more likely to work extended hours, be more career focused, etc.

I'm not saying this accounts for 100% of the difference but I've seen it posited that once confounders are accounted for the pay gap is about five cents. I believe it should be zero cents but let's face it five cents is a problem of a far smaller magnitude than what the societal narrative would have us believe is the magnitude of the problem.
post #2557 of 5616
Quote:
Originally Posted by Piobaire View Post

but then we need to think of things like women leaving and entering the workforce far more than men (thus a 45 year old man tends to have more years of experience vs. a 45 year old woman), men being more likely to work extended hours, be more career focused, etc.

cheers.gif
post #2558 of 5616
Quote:
Originally Posted by Piobaire View Post

It all depends on how one reviews the data. Yes, 78 cents on the dollar is the generally accepted number for the "gender pay gap" but that is a really shitty number. AFAIK it just basically takes all the female respondents in the study, and creates an average female wage, then does the same for all the males in the study. I'm sure you can see the multitude of suck surrounding this raw comparison. It takes no account for what job you hold, tenure, etc. It's a truly shitty number.

Now, one can drill down more and find men in the same profession tend to (tend to,mind you) earn more. At first blush this is also oh so damning but then we need to think of things like women leaving and entering the workforce far more than men (thus a 45 year old man tends to have more years of experience vs. a 45 year old woman), men being more likely to work extended hours, be more career focused, etc.

I'm not saying this accounts for 100% of the difference but I've seen it posited that once confounders are accounted for the pay gap is about five cents. I believe it should be zero cents but let's face it five cents is a problem of a far smaller magnitude than what the societal narrative would have us believe is the magnitude of the problem.

You're exactly right. This was just posted last week too:



http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2015/04/14/on-equal-pay-day-everything-you-need-to-know-about-the-gender-pay-gap/
post #2559 of 5616
My wife likes to tout that 78 cents number, in one of those "I've been repressed" sort of ways.


She makes more than me, in the same industry. Hah. I'm not suicidal, so I've never brought that point up.
post #2560 of 5616
BrokenC, thanks for that link. Working in an industry that is female dominated I did not need to see that chart to know this is the case. Hell, even my wife has complained about female subordinates and their increased need for time off, both extended and intermittent, and general drama around attendance and pulling extra hours if there's a push.

So, is this "fair" to women? The fact they bare children and in many cases have the majority of the duties of rearing young children? Well, I can't fix biology, in fact none of us can, so I think claims of the fact they have the vaginas so that's "unfair" is spurious. However, if society has determined that child baring/raising children should still earn the same hourly as their male counterparts I fail to see why individual organizations should foot the costs. FMLA really hurts small businesses. It's also no one's fault that mothers often exit the workforce, work reduced hours, and generally make more problematic employees therefore should not be promoted and/or compensated as non-problematic employees.

I think the way to fix this problem is that all organizations are compensated through tax dollars to eliminate the "pay gap." Design some sort of formula for a transfer payment to all organizations based on their female employees and the organizations will artificially inflate the average female pay to match the average male pay. Problem solved in a very equitable manner.
post #2561 of 5616
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gibonius View Post

My wife likes to tout that 78 cents number, in one of those "I've been repressed" sort of ways.


She makes more than me, in the same industry. Hah. I'm not suicidal, so I've never brought that point up.

She makes more than you because you are woefully imcompetent.
post #2562 of 5616
You're right Pio. I also find it spurious because I think if you ask the average woman (not the feminazis or sjws), I'm willing to bet most think that is a fair sacrifice. Like, if you asked my wife, she would balance home/raising kids higher than working more/getting promoted.

I think this would be common for most people because, quite honestly, that's the results we see. If the average woman was more career focused, I think we would see far lower child rates and/or more men staying at home. There are some countries that have that. Australia and Ireland, women are paid more than men. I believe it is the Ivory Coast where women hold most positions of power, and men stay home.
post #2563 of 5616
Quote:
Originally Posted by Piobaire View Post

So, is this "fair" to women? The fact they bare children and in many cases have the majority of the duties of rearing young children? Well, I can't fix biology, in fact none of us can, so I think claims of the fact they have the vaginas so that's "unfair" is spurious. However, if society has determined that child baring/raising children should still earn the same hourly as their male counterparts I fail to see why individual organizations should foot the costs. FMLA really hurts small businesses. It's also no one's fault that mothers often exit the workforce, work reduced hours, and generally make more problematic employees therefore should not be promoted and/or compensated as non-problematic employees.

I think the way to fix this problem is that all organizations are compensated through tax dollars to eliminate the "pay gap." Design some sort of formula for a transfer payment to all organizations based on their female employees and the organizations will artificially inflate the average female pay to match the average male pay. Problem solved in a very equitable manner.

This is sort of a separate conversation from the "equality of outcomes" 78c/$ thing, but:

It's a good question to ask. Who bears the burden of raising families? Right now we're more or less pretending that women can "have it all," the career, the family, the money. It's resulting in failure on all ends, and some really burned out and unhappy people. That doesn't seem sustainable, and there's already a pretty big drop in fertility rates among a lot of the high performing people that we'd probably want to be having kids. Dumping the whole burden on businesses to just deal with it doesn't seem to work, for the reasons you laid out. Something akin to the Swedish model makes some sense (paid leave by the state, pooled between the two parents), but then that money needs to come from somewhere. Something like unemployment insurance, maybe.

It's sort of amazing how feeble the maternity (and paternity) policies are in the US compared to pretty much all of the West, and not just leave. This really isn't a "women's issue" either, since most families are two-income these days. It seriously affects anybody who chooses to have kids. But much of the conversation is just stuck on the "feminism" label.

I get the impression our policies are largely dominated by the needs of business, with a lot less consideration for the needs (and especially happiness) of workers. In that light, I'd be interested to see how different parental leave schemes affect productivity.
post #2564 of 5616
Can women sue Mother Nature for discrimination?
post #2565 of 5616
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gibonius View Post

This is sort of a separate conversation from the "equality of outcomes" 78c/$ thing, but:

It's a good question to ask. Who bears the burden of raising families? Right now we're more or less pretending that women can "have it all," the career, the family, the money. It's resulting in failure on all ends, and some really burned out and unhappy people. That doesn't seem sustainable, and there's already a pretty big drop in fertility rates among a lot of the high performing people that we'd probably want to be having kids. Dumping the whole burden on businesses to just deal with it doesn't seem to work, for the reasons you laid out. Something akin to the Swedish model makes some sense (paid leave by the state, pooled between the two parents), but then that money needs to come from somewhere. Something like unemployment insurance, maybe.

It's sort of amazing how feeble the maternity (and paternity) policies are in the US compared to pretty much all of the West, and not just leave. This really isn't a "women's issue" either, since most families are two-income these days. It seriously affects anybody who chooses to have kids. But much of the conversation is just stuck on the "feminism" label.

I get the impression our policies are largely dominated by the needs of business, with a lot less consideration for the needs (and especially happiness) of workers. In that light, I'd be interested to see how different parental leave schemes affect productivity.

I disagree that the state needs to be involved. Sure, there are shitty companies out there, but my former employer did 8 weeks for the primary caregiver and 2 weeks for the other parent. My current employer does 6 and 1.

Google allegedly is doing 6 months. As unemployment falls again, companies will do things to attract talent such as improving PTO for having kids.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Current Events, Power and Money
Styleforum › Forums › General › Current Events, Power and Money › I need feminism because tumblr