TRoaches Posted January 30, 2014 Share Posted January 30, 2014 (edited) Men are considerably more likely than women to have an accident or to die at work. Almost four out of every five (79.5 %) serious accidents at work and nineteen out of every twenty (94.9 %) fatal accidents at work in 2009 involved men.... makes one wonder why women are still paid less than men if these statistics are true... With these numbers one would think hiring a man in general would be more of a liability than a woman any day despite the difference in pay between them.... Did you even consider for one second the possibility that more men have accidents at work than women because more men do physically dangerous work than women? Hazard pay is actually one of the reasons for the pay gap according to any study ever done on the subject. How many women do you know who work in dangerous, accident and injury prone fields, such as construction, rail yard hands, welding, mining, and etc? Also, with regards to your statistic stating that the majority of college graduates are female: how long has that been true? The highest echelons of employment are not open to recent college graduates. At the top levels the people who are in their 20's, 30's, and even 40's are going to be regarded as youngsters who need to put their time in before they will get a shot at the top jobs. This means that the people who are currently running the business world graduated in the 1970's and 1980's. If the majority of business-oriented college graduates during that time period were female then you would perhaps have a good point, but that is not the case. Women did not surpass men in college graduation rates until the 1990's, which would place this female majority towards the older end of the aforementioned "youngster" age group. “When the wage gap is analyzed by individual occupations, jobs and employee characteristics, regional labor markets, job titles, job responsibility, and experience; then the wage gap shrinks even more. When these differences are considered, many studies show that men and women make about the same....The danger is not that progress for women in slowing, but that Congress will overreact to false discrimination claims and pass legislation that will slow the growth of jobs in America for both men and women… The danger is not that women have insufficient remedies for discrimination or few paths to the corner office, but that Congress will interfere and slow the economy, reducing job growth and family income.” -Diana Furchtgott-Roth, former Chief Economist, US Department of Labor, testimony to the Joint Economic Committee, 2010 Edited January 30, 2014 by TRoaches Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
colourwheel Posted January 30, 2014 Author Share Posted January 30, 2014 (edited) @TRoaches Diana Furchtgott-Roth - Testimony on the Gender Pay Gap "Corporation, prepared for the Labor Department, shows that women make around 94% of what men make. The remaining six cents are due to unexplained variables, one of which might be discrimination." Then why not fix the 6% and insure that companies can't get away with pay discrimination towards women? After all republican's pushed for voter ID laws to insure that .00001% of voter fraud could not happen when none of the fraud that has ever taken place was even remotely connected to in person fraud. What is the real deal about Republicans being against pay equity for women, unless it's not about gender roles? I can guaranteed you once the tables flip at the rate according to what Diana Furchtgott-Roth points out where as women are being paid more than men eventually in the work force there will be a Republican push for pay equity.... Edited January 30, 2014 by colourwheel Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TRoaches Posted January 30, 2014 Share Posted January 30, 2014 I can guaranteed you once the tables flip at the rate Diana Furchtgott-Roth points out where as women are being paid more than men eventually in the work force there will be a Republican push for pay equity.... Let us pretend for a moment that this has already happened, and now there is a 6% pay gap in favor of women. What would you propose that we do at that point to remedy the situation in fairness to the now underpaid men? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
colourwheel Posted January 30, 2014 Author Share Posted January 30, 2014 I can guaranteed you once the tables flip at the rate Diana Furchtgott-Roth points out where as women are being paid more than men eventually in the work force there will be a Republican push for pay equity.... Let us pretend for a moment that this has already happened, and now there is a 6% pay gap in favor of women. What would you propose that we do at that point to remedy the situation in fairness to the now underpaid men? In 2012 the Republican's in the senate blocked the Paycheck Fairness Act, A bill that would have ensured women are paid the same amount as their male counterparts and vise versa could have addressed this.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TRoaches Posted January 30, 2014 Share Posted January 30, 2014 Here are a few other things that we can do to ensure gender equality: 1. Require all women to register for selective military service at age 182. Require that family courts do not consider the gender of the parents as a factor when determining who shall have custody of children3. Require that all law enforcement and prosecutors ignore the gender of the parties involved as a factor in cases of assault or harassment4. Abolishment of all alimony laws and practices Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vagrant0 Posted January 30, 2014 Share Posted January 30, 2014 @Vagrant0 If we live going on forward as just accepting things they way they are because the world isn't fair, nothing will ever change...And I can't help but think that you're taking the issue far too personally or attributing far too much of it solely to some sort of political agenda. You cannot switch it around to a "if men could get pregnant" because that is not something which is likely to ever be a natural situation, and if it was a natural situation, the bias would be the other way; with men being paid less because they may eventually decide to start a family. The whole reason why there is any gender inequality is because one portion of the species ended up having to deal with raising of children while the other portion had to provide for food and shelter. It's biology, it's built into the whole of our society, and even if it doesn't personally suit you, it is something which will likely continue to be as long as people are still being born and raised outside of a lab. You aren't going to find any men in favor of an "equal pay act" or anything of the sort simply because it means that they will have to take a comparable pay decrease to account for the actual statistical differences between the genders. Men and women may be able to exceed the typical notions of gender, but that does not exclude them from being bound to those natural inequalities that exist. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TRoaches Posted January 30, 2014 Share Posted January 30, 2014 It's biology, it's built into the whole of our society, and even if it doesn't personally suit you, it is something which will likely continue to be as long as people are still being born and raised outside of a lab.Speaking of biology ruining everything, I think its unfair that women's ovaries are nice and protected inside their torso but I am forced to deal with externally-mounted reproductive organs, prone to constant threat of the errant elbows of children and other people of short stature, or even a catastrophic slip and fall while exiting the shower. I also do alot of cycling soooo.....yeah. I have been writing letters to my congressperson urging her to address this issue by amending the ACA to require insurance companies to cover gonad relocation surgery (I would like them relocated on either side of my neck) but I have yet to hear back from her. Its not fair! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
colourwheel Posted January 30, 2014 Author Share Posted January 30, 2014 (edited) @ Vagrant0 I really don't mean to call you out but eventually women won't be obligated to physically bare children. It is proven a child can be born outside of a woman's womb. As technology arises I can see it becoming more social acceptable for this to become the norm, especially when women becomes more dominate in the work field. This won't change unless males gets their act together when it comes to higher education. After all, who would have thought only 20 years ago some of the things that we are able to do this day was completely incomprehensible.... It is a political agenda when one party is clinging to a social ideology about gender roles to stop progress when indefinitely it seems the tables will turn on them in the future at the current rate of opportunity for all.... I will state it again... If we live going on forward as just accepting things they way they are because the world isn't fair, nothing will ever change... Edit: I will just disregard TRoaches last post.... Edited January 30, 2014 by colourwheel Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ihoe Posted January 30, 2014 Share Posted January 30, 2014 Here's a Better Definition of the situation, as what the OP wrote is a tad too conclusive and somehow partly unaccounted (as stated by professor Steve Horwitz "Contemporary Economic Myth"): another study:http://www.payscale.com/data-packages/gender-wage-gap so based on the above,the government compares all weekly earnings, even though women and men do different things. Hence the bulk of differing inconclusive statistics over the (non)existence of a gender pay gap. The irony is that as women advance in their own careers, they might be more likely to fall behind, but they are also more likely to negotiate. The researchers concluded, Nearly a third of women -- and 29 percent of men -- have asked for raises, and even more female executives have done the same. In female-dominated sectors like health care and education, half of women have negotiated for salary, benefits, or a promotion. Also take into account being mislead over a choice of words. Sure There is a wage difference, But probably not be the wage difference that you thought. The real gap isn't between men and women doing the same job. The real gap is between men and women doing different jobs ergo following different careers. Once we start exploring why women and men choose different careers, we often find radical explanations concerning women having a greater 'burden' to perform child-care functions, and yet, there's trust able research out there that shows --on equal grounds-- women will, in much greater numbers, choose to perform those child-care functions. To Paraphrase, they are not 'forced' to do it by social pressures, they choose to do it for whatever personal reasons they have for wanting to perform those functions. One aspect of this argument is the differences in life choices men and women have. Women can choose to be a stay-at-home parent and have a reasonable expectation of finding a partner who will provide the resources she needs to devote all or most of her time to parenting. Men simply do not. Economists and game theorists talk about preferences, and constraints on those preferences. Men and women very well might have similar preference structures --preferring to work less-- spend more time with the children, etc. But women have fewer constraints on those preferences, in the sense that women can work less, spend more time with the children, and still enjoy a standard of living that they find acceptable because they can find a partner willing to provide those resources she needs to allow her to work less and raise the kids. Men have more constraints on those preferences. It is much more difficult for a man to find a woman who is willing to allow him to work less and raise the children in exchange for her working more and providing the resources the family needs to be 'successful'. Also, I believe that women have a stronger preference for child-rearing (a synonym for parenting), again in part, due to the large sunk costs they contribute to procreation. A woman 'pays' the price of pregnancy, and therefore, would more likely feel a 'pull' to provide the care necessary to successfully see her 'product' through those years of maturation when constant care is imperative--at least across a population of women. This is to say that because women actually spend all that time and energy having babies, they might 'naturally' feel a greater pull toward 'protecting' their investment. Having giving birth to the child, a woman passing the care functions off to others at a time when the child requires constant care seems counter-intuitive. I'm sure some women would prefer to put their careers ahead of raising their children, but I also believe we need to factor in the fact that not all work offers the kind of self-actualizing rewards that really good jobs do. Most people I know are not particularly 'happy' at their jobs, either because of the nature of the work, the friction of being 'managed,' or some combination of both. We don't all get to be lawyers, doctors, or movie stars. No. Most of us work mundane, difficult, or stressful jobs that we would most certainly give up if we had the option of having someone else do it and provide us with the resources we needed to survive and thrive. Now on the topic of the companies or government providing (which might be just remotely related to the OP's post, and I'm typing it for the sake of typing it), Nations with both universal healthcare, a liveable minimum wage and paid paternity leave still show these minimal disparities. The fact is women's choices are what matters here. If they choose to prioritize the rearing of children then it will have a substantial impact on their earnings just like of they chose to spend their available time working on anything else that didn't make money. Neither the society nor men need to focus entirely on making this grand bargain where women get to have their cake and eat it too. The fact is we must make sacrifices in life to get what we want. Often it means giving up one good thing to get something better. It might be a choice between freedom and security or a family life versus greater professional opportunity. and Again I am not typing anything about abortion, that's a whole other debate. A lot of men give up a LOT to provide for their families. This includes time with their kids, for their hobbies, sometimes even their professional dreams which might not make enough money for their family. Yet when a woman wants to leave her position to raise kids, she feels she should be immune to the consequences of that choice? I'm sorry, but that is not an option. Part of getting equality is getting responsibility, that includes being responsible for decisions about parenthood. Women have had equality for a long time, but the truth is that women are now struggling to define what this equality means in their professional and personal lives. How can you not see that they are likely getting less money and less advancement because bosses assume they are going to leave the job when they have kids? it's not society's responsibility to pretend women who leave jobs for motherhood are just as dedicated and motivated in their careers as women who give up motherhood in order to pursue advancement at work.and Finally: It is an empirical fact that a majority of college and law school graduates are female by far in comparison to males. I would argue over pointing to a definitive meaning for a relative word referring to an arbitrary possibility (which is a 20% gap), in tandem to a sexist educational system dominated by females and anti-male sexism at more elementary levels. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vagrant0 Posted January 30, 2014 Share Posted January 30, 2014 @ Vagrant0 This won't change unless males gets their act together when it comes to higher education. After all, who would have thought only 20 years ago some of the things that we are able to do this day was completely incomprehensible.... Look at the other side of the issue. The declining role of Fathers having an impact during childhood. The declining number of positive male role models who are not woman-beating, dog-fighting, scumbags. The fact that there has been a decided agenda based on boosting female confidence since the 80's, without a single finger lifted in regards to male confidence or efficacy. Girls are encouraged to be smart, creative, ambitious, while boys are pushed into sports, violence, and selling lies. Female doctors are idolized because they are challenging antiquated notions of gender roles... meanwhile nobody gives a rat's ass about a male doctor who worked just as hard, if not harder just because he happens to be part of the master class. What kind of message do you suppose that sends to a child who is considering his future, will he study hard to fill some position somewhere that nobody cares about or settle for what he can get? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts