|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
On January 28 2014 09:48 Chocolate wrote:Show nested quote +On January 28 2014 07:54 Roe wrote:On January 28 2014 06:27 JonnyBNoHo wrote:
I think you'd have a damn hard time trying to prove that one sex has it better than the other. seems pretty easy actually And please, why do liberal politicians want so many more college graduates? The REASON that high school degrees mean nothing now is because every average joe is going to college and graduating these days. Education should be possible for all but if you really want to make things better: stop making universities fucking waterparks, lower tuition, have more and cheaper options for R/B and abolish mandatory first year RB, change the way education loans work (protip: if they were hard to get universities would not charge nearly as much), think of some way to cull the ballooning administration at universities... Sending more people to college may increase the liberal voting base but it will not solve any problems.
Isn't the reason for that being increase in technology? We've all been through the discussions about tech replacing labour jobs; this is perhaps the reality of that hypothesis. But since you complained about high school degrees meaning nothing because of the increase in college graduation and attendance, why would you want to lower tuition? If you want to fix the problem of college degrees meaning less and high school even less, you need to improve high school education (bring in critical thinking skills and 'good reasoning' education). But I'm not sure if you can press those kinds of formal operations that early; it takes time to develop the important high level academic skills. I'm not sure why sending more to college would increase the liberal voting base either, (especially with all these militant libertarians/college republicans running around these days!)
On January 28 2014 13:08 xDaunt wrote:
When I practiced as a plaintiff's employment law worker, I saw and heard about all kinds of discrimination. Most of it was fairly baseless. Whatever I basically never heard people complain about, however, was basic sex/gender discrimination -- ie female employees being treated materially worse than males. What I did hear a lot about was sexual harassment, which is a different animal.
So yeah, I'm fairly comfortable saying that women have it pretty good. Yeah, they still have to deal with pigs at work that just want to get into their pants from time to time. But this idea that they are being held back as a gender by their male overlords is pure horseshit.
Even in conservative communities? (The definition of traditional family values always seems to entail the mother staying at home and raising the kids).
|
That is a good source. Unfortunately most of the articles are behind a pay wall and I could only access the abstract. I was particularly interested in this article Perhaps I do not know enough about the medical profession but it was my understanding that pay - especially in private practice - is pretty much determined by your specialty, what your patients elect to choose, and how many patients you get. Do you think people simply prefer male doctors?
|
On January 28 2014 13:15 Roe wrote:Show nested quote +On January 28 2014 13:08 xDaunt wrote:
When I practiced as a plaintiff's employment law worker, I saw and heard about all kinds of discrimination. Most of it was fairly baseless. Whatever I basically never heard people complain about, however, was basic sex/gender discrimination -- ie female employees being treated materially worse than males. What I did hear a lot about was sexual harassment, which is a different animal.
So yeah, I'm fairly comfortable saying that women have it pretty good. Yeah, they still have to deal with pigs at work that just want to get into their pants from time to time. But this idea that they are being held back as a gender by their male overlords is pure horseshit. Even in conservative communities? (The definition of traditional family values always seems to entail the mother staying at home and raising the kids).
Colorado, which is fairly moderate in the Denver metro area, and very conservative if you're outside of the Denver metro area. Denver, though, skews young and professional.
|
On January 28 2014 13:13 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On January 28 2014 12:50 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On January 28 2014 12:42 Nyxisto wrote:On January 28 2014 12:31 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On January 28 2014 12:25 GreenHorizons wrote:On January 28 2014 12:11 xDaunt wrote:On January 28 2014 12:02 Ghostcom wrote:
Is a society only gender equal when there is an equal distribution of men and women in all professions? Or is it when an individual regardless of gender has an equal opportunity to work any profession? Women can do whatever the fuck that they want in society now. If anything, they have an easier time doing whatever want due to the subtle affirmative action that is inherent in many institutions and industries. Yeah except earn the same money for the same job. *sigh* They aren't "the same job" though. When you control for things like hours worked and whatnot the gap falls nearly to zero. What remains can likely be explained by other legitimate factors. The wage gap is pretty much a myth. The conservative MO live at work here :"If the liberals seem to be right than we'll just start to deny that well established facts are true". Also works really great with climate change. So you've heard Jonny guys, there is no discrimnation, time to go home. Discrimination exists (and it cuts in many directions) ... but the wage gap between men and women is almost entirely a myth. It's a topic that's been banged about on this thread multiple times and every time it gets shot down by real data that really debunks it. Sorry, but you're on the wrong side of data here. MYTH: There is no such thing as the gender pay gap – legitimate differences between men and women cause the gap in pay, not discrimination. REALITY: Decades of research shows a gender gap in pay even after factors like the kind of work performed and qualifications (education and experience) are taken into account. These studies consistently conclude that discrimination is the best explanation of the remaining difference in pay. Show nested quote +On January 28 2014 12:31 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On January 28 2014 12:25 GreenHorizons wrote:On January 28 2014 12:11 xDaunt wrote:On January 28 2014 12:02 Ghostcom wrote:
Is a society only gender equal when there is an equal distribution of men and women in all professions? Or is it when an individual regardless of gender has an equal opportunity to work any profession? Women can do whatever the fuck that they want in society now. If anything, they have an easier time doing whatever want due to the subtle affirmative action that is inherent in many institutions and industries. Yeah except earn the same money for the same job. *sigh* They aren't "the same job" though. When you control for things like hours worked and whatnot the gap falls nearly to zero. What remains can likely be explained by other legitimate factors. The wage gap is pretty much a myth. MYTH: But the pay gap is not my problem. Once you account for the jobs that require specialized skills or education it goes away. REALITY: The pay gap for women with advanced degrees, corporate positions, and high paying, high skill jobs is just as real as the gap for workers overall. In a recent study of newly trained doctors, even after considering the effects of specialty, practice setting, work hours and other factors, the gender pay gap was nearly $17,000 in 2008. Source
MYTH: A pay gap exists, therefore gender discrimination is the cause.
REALITY: We're still figuring out the reasons for the remaining pay gap (which is very small). A recent study focused on an equal profession - pharmacist - and found that one major reason was that pay was linear, with respect to hours worked, which differed from other professions where pay was non-linear.
|
On January 28 2014 13:27 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On January 28 2014 13:13 GreenHorizons wrote:On January 28 2014 12:50 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On January 28 2014 12:42 Nyxisto wrote:On January 28 2014 12:31 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On January 28 2014 12:25 GreenHorizons wrote:On January 28 2014 12:11 xDaunt wrote:On January 28 2014 12:02 Ghostcom wrote:
Is a society only gender equal when there is an equal distribution of men and women in all professions? Or is it when an individual regardless of gender has an equal opportunity to work any profession? Women can do whatever the fuck that they want in society now. If anything, they have an easier time doing whatever want due to the subtle affirmative action that is inherent in many institutions and industries. Yeah except earn the same money for the same job. *sigh* They aren't "the same job" though. When you control for things like hours worked and whatnot the gap falls nearly to zero. What remains can likely be explained by other legitimate factors. The wage gap is pretty much a myth. The conservative MO live at work here :"If the liberals seem to be right than we'll just start to deny that well established facts are true". Also works really great with climate change. So you've heard Jonny guys, there is no discrimnation, time to go home. Discrimination exists (and it cuts in many directions) ... but the wage gap between men and women is almost entirely a myth. It's a topic that's been banged about on this thread multiple times and every time it gets shot down by real data that really debunks it. Sorry, but you're on the wrong side of data here. MYTH: There is no such thing as the gender pay gap – legitimate differences between men and women cause the gap in pay, not discrimination. REALITY: Decades of research shows a gender gap in pay even after factors like the kind of work performed and qualifications (education and experience) are taken into account. These studies consistently conclude that discrimination is the best explanation of the remaining difference in pay. On January 28 2014 12:31 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On January 28 2014 12:25 GreenHorizons wrote:On January 28 2014 12:11 xDaunt wrote:On January 28 2014 12:02 Ghostcom wrote:
Is a society only gender equal when there is an equal distribution of men and women in all professions? Or is it when an individual regardless of gender has an equal opportunity to work any profession? Women can do whatever the fuck that they want in society now. If anything, they have an easier time doing whatever want due to the subtle affirmative action that is inherent in many institutions and industries. Yeah except earn the same money for the same job. *sigh* They aren't "the same job" though. When you control for things like hours worked and whatnot the gap falls nearly to zero. What remains can likely be explained by other legitimate factors. The wage gap is pretty much a myth. MYTH: But the pay gap is not my problem. Once you account for the jobs that require specialized skills or education it goes away. REALITY: The pay gap for women with advanced degrees, corporate positions, and high paying, high skill jobs is just as real as the gap for workers overall. In a recent study of newly trained doctors, even after considering the effects of specialty, practice setting, work hours and other factors, the gender pay gap was nearly $17,000 in 2008. Source MYTH: A pay gap exists, therefore gender discrimination is the cause. REALITY: We're still figuring out the reasons for the remaining pay gap (which is very small). A recent study focused on an equal profession - pharmacist - and found that one major reason was that pay was linear, with respect to hours worked, which differed from other professions where pay was non-linear.
I'm sure your assertion has sources too?
|
On January 28 2014 13:49 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On January 28 2014 13:27 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On January 28 2014 13:13 GreenHorizons wrote:On January 28 2014 12:50 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On January 28 2014 12:42 Nyxisto wrote:On January 28 2014 12:31 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On January 28 2014 12:25 GreenHorizons wrote:On January 28 2014 12:11 xDaunt wrote:On January 28 2014 12:02 Ghostcom wrote:
Is a society only gender equal when there is an equal distribution of men and women in all professions? Or is it when an individual regardless of gender has an equal opportunity to work any profession? Women can do whatever the fuck that they want in society now. If anything, they have an easier time doing whatever want due to the subtle affirmative action that is inherent in many institutions and industries. Yeah except earn the same money for the same job. *sigh* They aren't "the same job" though. When you control for things like hours worked and whatnot the gap falls nearly to zero. What remains can likely be explained by other legitimate factors. The wage gap is pretty much a myth. The conservative MO live at work here :"If the liberals seem to be right than we'll just start to deny that well established facts are true". Also works really great with climate change. So you've heard Jonny guys, there is no discrimnation, time to go home. Discrimination exists (and it cuts in many directions) ... but the wage gap between men and women is almost entirely a myth. It's a topic that's been banged about on this thread multiple times and every time it gets shot down by real data that really debunks it. Sorry, but you're on the wrong side of data here. MYTH: There is no such thing as the gender pay gap – legitimate differences between men and women cause the gap in pay, not discrimination. REALITY: Decades of research shows a gender gap in pay even after factors like the kind of work performed and qualifications (education and experience) are taken into account. These studies consistently conclude that discrimination is the best explanation of the remaining difference in pay. On January 28 2014 12:31 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On January 28 2014 12:25 GreenHorizons wrote:On January 28 2014 12:11 xDaunt wrote:On January 28 2014 12:02 Ghostcom wrote:
Is a society only gender equal when there is an equal distribution of men and women in all professions? Or is it when an individual regardless of gender has an equal opportunity to work any profession? Women can do whatever the fuck that they want in society now. If anything, they have an easier time doing whatever want due to the subtle affirmative action that is inherent in many institutions and industries. Yeah except earn the same money for the same job. *sigh* They aren't "the same job" though. When you control for things like hours worked and whatnot the gap falls nearly to zero. What remains can likely be explained by other legitimate factors. The wage gap is pretty much a myth. MYTH: But the pay gap is not my problem. Once you account for the jobs that require specialized skills or education it goes away. REALITY: The pay gap for women with advanced degrees, corporate positions, and high paying, high skill jobs is just as real as the gap for workers overall. In a recent study of newly trained doctors, even after considering the effects of specialty, practice setting, work hours and other factors, the gender pay gap was nearly $17,000 in 2008. Source MYTH: A pay gap exists, therefore gender discrimination is the cause. REALITY: We're still figuring out the reasons for the remaining pay gap (which is very small). A recent study focused on an equal profession - pharmacist - and found that one major reason was that pay was linear, with respect to hours worked, which differed from other professions where pay was non-linear. I'm sure your assertion has sources too?
Yup. I posted it last time this discussion came up.
Edit: Here:
A recent paper on the gender pay gap was featured at the American Economic Association meetings a week ago:
A Grand Gender Convergence: Its Last Chapter
ABSTRACT: The converging roles of men and women are among the grandest advances in society and the economy in the last century. These aspects of the grand gender convergence are figurative chapters in a history of gender roles. But what must the “last” chapter contain for there to be equality in the labor market? The answer may come as a surprise. The solution does not (necessarily) have to involve government intervention and it need not make men more responsible in the home (although that wouldn’t hurt). But it must involve changes in the labor market, in particular how jobs are structured and remunerated to enhance temporal flexibility. The gender gap in pay would be considerably reduced and might vanish altogether if firms did not have an incentive to disproportionately reward individuals who labored long hours and worked particular hours. Such change has taken off in various sectors, such as technology, science and health, but is less apparent in the corporate, financial and legal worlds.
Link to paper.
Link to blog article on it.
The part in bold refers to the idea that pay in some positions is "non-linear" e.g. working twice as many hours will result in more than twice the total pay.
|
why are republicans using women in education as a good argument when they often denigrate academics in favour of 'real life experience'?
|
Insurance sales agent is so heavily skewed because the entire field of Customer Service Reps is dominated by CSRs (customer service reps) and the entire population of producers (those that solicit business) are nearly entirely male. I work in insurance as an underwriter, I have had 4 women producers and 19 male producers, but 28 female CSRs and 0 male CSRs. Successful producers make more money, but it's all commission based. Only thing I can see stopping women in that field is individuals having reluctance to use a woman as an agent...
|
On January 28 2014 13:51 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On January 28 2014 13:49 GreenHorizons wrote:On January 28 2014 13:27 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On January 28 2014 13:13 GreenHorizons wrote:On January 28 2014 12:50 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On January 28 2014 12:42 Nyxisto wrote:On January 28 2014 12:31 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On January 28 2014 12:25 GreenHorizons wrote:On January 28 2014 12:11 xDaunt wrote:On January 28 2014 12:02 Ghostcom wrote:
Is a society only gender equal when there is an equal distribution of men and women in all professions? Or is it when an individual regardless of gender has an equal opportunity to work any profession? Women can do whatever the fuck that they want in society now. If anything, they have an easier time doing whatever want due to the subtle affirmative action that is inherent in many institutions and industries. Yeah except earn the same money for the same job. *sigh* They aren't "the same job" though. When you control for things like hours worked and whatnot the gap falls nearly to zero. What remains can likely be explained by other legitimate factors. The wage gap is pretty much a myth. The conservative MO live at work here :"If the liberals seem to be right than we'll just start to deny that well established facts are true". Also works really great with climate change. So you've heard Jonny guys, there is no discrimnation, time to go home. Discrimination exists (and it cuts in many directions) ... but the wage gap between men and women is almost entirely a myth. It's a topic that's been banged about on this thread multiple times and every time it gets shot down by real data that really debunks it. Sorry, but you're on the wrong side of data here. MYTH: There is no such thing as the gender pay gap – legitimate differences between men and women cause the gap in pay, not discrimination. REALITY: Decades of research shows a gender gap in pay even after factors like the kind of work performed and qualifications (education and experience) are taken into account. These studies consistently conclude that discrimination is the best explanation of the remaining difference in pay. On January 28 2014 12:31 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On January 28 2014 12:25 GreenHorizons wrote:On January 28 2014 12:11 xDaunt wrote:On January 28 2014 12:02 Ghostcom wrote:
Is a society only gender equal when there is an equal distribution of men and women in all professions? Or is it when an individual regardless of gender has an equal opportunity to work any profession? Women can do whatever the fuck that they want in society now. If anything, they have an easier time doing whatever want due to the subtle affirmative action that is inherent in many institutions and industries. Yeah except earn the same money for the same job. *sigh* They aren't "the same job" though. When you control for things like hours worked and whatnot the gap falls nearly to zero. What remains can likely be explained by other legitimate factors. The wage gap is pretty much a myth. MYTH: But the pay gap is not my problem. Once you account for the jobs that require specialized skills or education it goes away. REALITY: The pay gap for women with advanced degrees, corporate positions, and high paying, high skill jobs is just as real as the gap for workers overall. In a recent study of newly trained doctors, even after considering the effects of specialty, practice setting, work hours and other factors, the gender pay gap was nearly $17,000 in 2008. Source MYTH: A pay gap exists, therefore gender discrimination is the cause. REALITY: We're still figuring out the reasons for the remaining pay gap (which is very small). A recent study focused on an equal profession - pharmacist - and found that one major reason was that pay was linear, with respect to hours worked, which differed from other professions where pay was non-linear. I'm sure your assertion has sources too? Yup. I posted it last time this discussion came up. Edit: Here: A recent paper on the gender pay gap was featured at the American Economic Association meetings a week ago: Show nested quote +A Grand Gender Convergence: Its Last Chapter
ABSTRACT: The converging roles of men and women are among the grandest advances in society and the economy in the last century. These aspects of the grand gender convergence are figurative chapters in a history of gender roles. But what must the “last” chapter contain for there to be equality in the labor market? The answer may come as a surprise. The solution does not (necessarily) have to involve government intervention and it need not make men more responsible in the home (although that wouldn’t hurt). But it must involve changes in the labor market, in particular how jobs are structured and remunerated to enhance temporal flexibility. The gender gap in pay would be considerably reduced and might vanish altogether if firms did not have an incentive to disproportionately reward individuals who labored long hours and worked particular hours. Such change has taken off in various sectors, such as technology, science and health, but is less apparent in the corporate, financial and legal worlds. Link to paper. Link to blog article on it. The part in bold refers to the idea that pay in some positions is "non-linear" e.g. working twice as many hours will result in more than twice the total pay.
You do realize that is in context with her other work which completely refutes your position?
http://scholar.harvard.edu/goldin/publications/pollution-theory-discrimination-male-and-female-differences-occupations-and
The entire paper shows how gender discrimination (while not necessarily intentional or based on performance) results in wage disparity.
|
On January 28 2014 14:20 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On January 28 2014 13:51 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On January 28 2014 13:49 GreenHorizons wrote:On January 28 2014 13:27 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On January 28 2014 13:13 GreenHorizons wrote:On January 28 2014 12:50 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On January 28 2014 12:42 Nyxisto wrote:On January 28 2014 12:31 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On January 28 2014 12:25 GreenHorizons wrote:On January 28 2014 12:11 xDaunt wrote:
[quote]
Women can do whatever the fuck that they want in society now. If anything, they have an easier time doing whatever want due to the subtle affirmative action that is inherent in many institutions and industries. Yeah except earn the same money for the same job. *sigh* They aren't "the same job" though. When you control for things like hours worked and whatnot the gap falls nearly to zero. What remains can likely be explained by other legitimate factors. The wage gap is pretty much a myth. The conservative MO live at work here :"If the liberals seem to be right than we'll just start to deny that well established facts are true". Also works really great with climate change. So you've heard Jonny guys, there is no discrimnation, time to go home. Discrimination exists (and it cuts in many directions) ... but the wage gap between men and women is almost entirely a myth. It's a topic that's been banged about on this thread multiple times and every time it gets shot down by real data that really debunks it. Sorry, but you're on the wrong side of data here. MYTH: There is no such thing as the gender pay gap – legitimate differences between men and women cause the gap in pay, not discrimination. REALITY: Decades of research shows a gender gap in pay even after factors like the kind of work performed and qualifications (education and experience) are taken into account. These studies consistently conclude that discrimination is the best explanation of the remaining difference in pay. On January 28 2014 12:31 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On January 28 2014 12:25 GreenHorizons wrote:On January 28 2014 12:11 xDaunt wrote:On January 28 2014 12:02 Ghostcom wrote:
Is a society only gender equal when there is an equal distribution of men and women in all professions? Or is it when an individual regardless of gender has an equal opportunity to work any profession? Women can do whatever the fuck that they want in society now. If anything, they have an easier time doing whatever want due to the subtle affirmative action that is inherent in many institutions and industries. Yeah except earn the same money for the same job. *sigh* They aren't "the same job" though. When you control for things like hours worked and whatnot the gap falls nearly to zero. What remains can likely be explained by other legitimate factors. The wage gap is pretty much a myth. MYTH: But the pay gap is not my problem. Once you account for the jobs that require specialized skills or education it goes away. REALITY: The pay gap for women with advanced degrees, corporate positions, and high paying, high skill jobs is just as real as the gap for workers overall. In a recent study of newly trained doctors, even after considering the effects of specialty, practice setting, work hours and other factors, the gender pay gap was nearly $17,000 in 2008. Source MYTH: A pay gap exists, therefore gender discrimination is the cause. REALITY: We're still figuring out the reasons for the remaining pay gap (which is very small). A recent study focused on an equal profession - pharmacist - and found that one major reason was that pay was linear, with respect to hours worked, which differed from other professions where pay was non-linear. I'm sure your assertion has sources too? Yup. I posted it last time this discussion came up. Edit: Here: A recent paper on the gender pay gap was featured at the American Economic Association meetings a week ago: A Grand Gender Convergence: Its Last Chapter
ABSTRACT: The converging roles of men and women are among the grandest advances in society and the economy in the last century. These aspects of the grand gender convergence are figurative chapters in a history of gender roles. But what must the “last” chapter contain for there to be equality in the labor market? The answer may come as a surprise. The solution does not (necessarily) have to involve government intervention and it need not make men more responsible in the home (although that wouldn’t hurt). But it must involve changes in the labor market, in particular how jobs are structured and remunerated to enhance temporal flexibility. The gender gap in pay would be considerably reduced and might vanish altogether if firms did not have an incentive to disproportionately reward individuals who labored long hours and worked particular hours. Such change has taken off in various sectors, such as technology, science and health, but is less apparent in the corporate, financial and legal worlds. Link to paper. Link to blog article on it. The part in bold refers to the idea that pay in some positions is "non-linear" e.g. working twice as many hours will result in more than twice the total pay. You do realize that is in context with her other work which completely refutes your position? http://scholar.harvard.edu/goldin/publications/pollution-theory-discrimination-male-and-female-differences-occupations-andToo be fair what might be lost in my position isn't that men are evil discriminators, just that despite economic evidence that the disparity in pay is not reflective of a disparity of performance alone, can and should be addressed.
Does it? Could you explain?
|
On January 28 2014 14:43 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On January 28 2014 14:20 GreenHorizons wrote:On January 28 2014 13:51 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On January 28 2014 13:49 GreenHorizons wrote:On January 28 2014 13:27 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On January 28 2014 13:13 GreenHorizons wrote:On January 28 2014 12:50 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On January 28 2014 12:42 Nyxisto wrote:On January 28 2014 12:31 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On January 28 2014 12:25 GreenHorizons wrote:
[quote]
Yeah except earn the same money for the same job. *sigh*
[quote] They aren't "the same job" though. When you control for things like hours worked and whatnot the gap falls nearly to zero. What remains can likely be explained by other legitimate factors. The wage gap is pretty much a myth. The conservative MO live at work here :"If the liberals seem to be right than we'll just start to deny that well established facts are true". Also works really great with climate change. So you've heard Jonny guys, there is no discrimnation, time to go home. Discrimination exists (and it cuts in many directions) ... but the wage gap between men and women is almost entirely a myth. It's a topic that's been banged about on this thread multiple times and every time it gets shot down by real data that really debunks it. Sorry, but you're on the wrong side of data here. MYTH: There is no such thing as the gender pay gap – legitimate differences between men and women cause the gap in pay, not discrimination. REALITY: Decades of research shows a gender gap in pay even after factors like the kind of work performed and qualifications (education and experience) are taken into account. These studies consistently conclude that discrimination is the best explanation of the remaining difference in pay. On January 28 2014 12:31 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On January 28 2014 12:25 GreenHorizons wrote:On January 28 2014 12:11 xDaunt wrote:On January 28 2014 12:02 Ghostcom wrote:
Is a society only gender equal when there is an equal distribution of men and women in all professions? Or is it when an individual regardless of gender has an equal opportunity to work any profession? Women can do whatever the fuck that they want in society now. If anything, they have an easier time doing whatever want due to the subtle affirmative action that is inherent in many institutions and industries. Yeah except earn the same money for the same job. *sigh* They aren't "the same job" though. When you control for things like hours worked and whatnot the gap falls nearly to zero. What remains can likely be explained by other legitimate factors. The wage gap is pretty much a myth. MYTH: But the pay gap is not my problem. Once you account for the jobs that require specialized skills or education it goes away. REALITY: The pay gap for women with advanced degrees, corporate positions, and high paying, high skill jobs is just as real as the gap for workers overall. In a recent study of newly trained doctors, even after considering the effects of specialty, practice setting, work hours and other factors, the gender pay gap was nearly $17,000 in 2008. Source MYTH: A pay gap exists, therefore gender discrimination is the cause. REALITY: We're still figuring out the reasons for the remaining pay gap (which is very small). A recent study focused on an equal profession - pharmacist - and found that one major reason was that pay was linear, with respect to hours worked, which differed from other professions where pay was non-linear. I'm sure your assertion has sources too? Yup. I posted it last time this discussion came up. Edit: Here: A recent paper on the gender pay gap was featured at the American Economic Association meetings a week ago: A Grand Gender Convergence: Its Last Chapter
ABSTRACT: The converging roles of men and women are among the grandest advances in society and the economy in the last century. These aspects of the grand gender convergence are figurative chapters in a history of gender roles. But what must the “last” chapter contain for there to be equality in the labor market? The answer may come as a surprise. The solution does not (necessarily) have to involve government intervention and it need not make men more responsible in the home (although that wouldn’t hurt). But it must involve changes in the labor market, in particular how jobs are structured and remunerated to enhance temporal flexibility. The gender gap in pay would be considerably reduced and might vanish altogether if firms did not have an incentive to disproportionately reward individuals who labored long hours and worked particular hours. Such change has taken off in various sectors, such as technology, science and health, but is less apparent in the corporate, financial and legal worlds. Link to paper. Link to blog article on it. The part in bold refers to the idea that pay in some positions is "non-linear" e.g. working twice as many hours will result in more than twice the total pay. You do realize that is in context with her other work which completely refutes your position? http://scholar.harvard.edu/goldin/publications/pollution-theory-discrimination-male-and-female-differences-occupations-andToo be fair what might be lost in my position isn't that men are evil discriminators, just that despite economic evidence that the disparity in pay is not reflective of a disparity of performance alone, can and should be addressed. Does it? Could you explain?
The entire paper shows how discrimination (while not necessarily intentional or based on performance) results in wage disparity.
|
the author of this study defines a piecewise linear function in a roundabout way and calls it non-linear. so the author writing a paper on 'nonlinear occupations' doesn't recognize a linear function even if she defines it herself.
the pieces of the jonnybnoho-puzzle is starting to fall into place.
|
The bridge scandal that has been rocking New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie's (R) administration is now linked in at least one more small way to a billion-dollar redevelopment project in the state.
On Friday, news broke that one of the officials embroiled in the scandal had hired the high-powered New Jersey lawfirm of Genova Burns Giantomasi Webster to represent him as both state and federal authorities investigate the matter.
The official, David Samson, was Christie's appointee as chairman of the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey, the agency that oversees the George Washington Bridge, which is at the heart of the scandal. Samson's name appeared in emails that surfaced earlier this month as part of the legislative investigation into the lane closures on the bridge in September.
But it turns out the attorney Samson hired is also involved in a billion-dollar retail and luxury residential development called Hudson Lights, which is being built at the foot of the bridge in Fort Lee, N.J. Given its location and the amount of money involved, some have wondered whether the project was potentially the motive for the lane closures, which caused days of gridlock in Fort Lee.
A source at the state house confirmed to TPM on Monday the attorney Samson hired is one of the firm's name partners, Angelo Genova.
The website for Genova's firm notes he has "served as lead counsel on behalf of a major developer ... at a strategically located development site at the foot of the George Washington Bridge."
Source
|
On January 28 2014 13:15 Roe wrote:Show nested quote +On January 28 2014 09:48 Chocolate wrote:On January 28 2014 07:54 Roe wrote:On January 28 2014 06:27 JonnyBNoHo wrote:
I think you'd have a damn hard time trying to prove that one sex has it better than the other. seems pretty easy actually And please, why do liberal politicians want so many more college graduates? The REASON that high school degrees mean nothing now is because every average joe is going to college and graduating these days. Education should be possible for all but if you really want to make things better: stop making universities fucking waterparks, lower tuition, have more and cheaper options for R/B and abolish mandatory first year RB, change the way education loans work (protip: if they were hard to get universities would not charge nearly as much), think of some way to cull the ballooning administration at universities... Sending more people to college may increase the liberal voting base but it will not solve any problems. Isn't the reason for that being increase in technology? We've all been through the discussions about tech replacing labour jobs; this is perhaps the reality of that hypothesis. But since you complained about high school degrees meaning nothing because of the increase in college graduation and attendance, why would you want to lower tuition? If you want to fix the problem of college degrees meaning less and high school even less, you need to improve high school education (bring in critical thinking skills and 'good reasoning' education). But I'm not sure if you can press those kinds of formal operations that early; it takes time to develop the important high level academic skills. I'm not sure why sending more to college would increase the liberal voting base either, (especially with all these militant libertarians/college republicans running around these days!)
Just want to chime in on this education thing. The reduced reward from higher education doesn't mean that too many people have college educations, it means that the economy isn't properly utilizing and rewarding people. These are people that have shown, to a great degree, that they can continue to learn and grow, and that they would be an overall good employee given the right incentives (with obvious exceptions here and there). However, the economy is in such a state that employers can ask for overqualified applicants, sending many of these better trained and smarter employees into fields that simply cannot benefit from their additional "training" (like the iconic barista). If we can correct this imbalance, and possibly shift it slightly beyond a balance in the other direction, these better "trained" workers will be able to show off what they learned and provide actual improvements to our economy as more is asked of them. In this case, having that degree not only helps the worker's bottom line, but also provides a boost to all participants in our economy.
|
On January 28 2014 15:08 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On January 28 2014 14:43 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On January 28 2014 14:20 GreenHorizons wrote:On January 28 2014 13:51 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On January 28 2014 13:49 GreenHorizons wrote:On January 28 2014 13:27 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On January 28 2014 13:13 GreenHorizons wrote:On January 28 2014 12:50 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On January 28 2014 12:42 Nyxisto wrote:On January 28 2014 12:31 JonnyBNoHo wrote:
[quote]
They aren't "the same job" though. When you control for things like hours worked and whatnot the gap falls nearly to zero. What remains can likely be explained by other legitimate factors. The wage gap is pretty much a myth. The conservative MO live at work here :"If the liberals seem to be right than we'll just start to deny that well established facts are true". Also works really great with climate change. So you've heard Jonny guys, there is no discrimnation, time to go home. Discrimination exists (and it cuts in many directions) ... but the wage gap between men and women is almost entirely a myth. It's a topic that's been banged about on this thread multiple times and every time it gets shot down by real data that really debunks it. Sorry, but you're on the wrong side of data here. MYTH: There is no such thing as the gender pay gap – legitimate differences between men and women cause the gap in pay, not discrimination. REALITY: Decades of research shows a gender gap in pay even after factors like the kind of work performed and qualifications (education and experience) are taken into account. These studies consistently conclude that discrimination is the best explanation of the remaining difference in pay. On January 28 2014 12:31 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On January 28 2014 12:25 GreenHorizons wrote:On January 28 2014 12:11 xDaunt wrote:
[quote]
Women can do whatever the fuck that they want in society now. If anything, they have an easier time doing whatever want due to the subtle affirmative action that is inherent in many institutions and industries. Yeah except earn the same money for the same job. *sigh* They aren't "the same job" though. When you control for things like hours worked and whatnot the gap falls nearly to zero. What remains can likely be explained by other legitimate factors. The wage gap is pretty much a myth. MYTH: But the pay gap is not my problem. Once you account for the jobs that require specialized skills or education it goes away. REALITY: The pay gap for women with advanced degrees, corporate positions, and high paying, high skill jobs is just as real as the gap for workers overall. In a recent study of newly trained doctors, even after considering the effects of specialty, practice setting, work hours and other factors, the gender pay gap was nearly $17,000 in 2008. Source MYTH: A pay gap exists, therefore gender discrimination is the cause. REALITY: We're still figuring out the reasons for the remaining pay gap (which is very small). A recent study focused on an equal profession - pharmacist - and found that one major reason was that pay was linear, with respect to hours worked, which differed from other professions where pay was non-linear. I'm sure your assertion has sources too? Yup. I posted it last time this discussion came up. Edit: Here: A recent paper on the gender pay gap was featured at the American Economic Association meetings a week ago: A Grand Gender Convergence: Its Last Chapter
ABSTRACT: The converging roles of men and women are among the grandest advances in society and the economy in the last century. These aspects of the grand gender convergence are figurative chapters in a history of gender roles. But what must the “last” chapter contain for there to be equality in the labor market? The answer may come as a surprise. The solution does not (necessarily) have to involve government intervention and it need not make men more responsible in the home (although that wouldn’t hurt). But it must involve changes in the labor market, in particular how jobs are structured and remunerated to enhance temporal flexibility. The gender gap in pay would be considerably reduced and might vanish altogether if firms did not have an incentive to disproportionately reward individuals who labored long hours and worked particular hours. Such change has taken off in various sectors, such as technology, science and health, but is less apparent in the corporate, financial and legal worlds. Link to paper. Link to blog article on it. The part in bold refers to the idea that pay in some positions is "non-linear" e.g. working twice as many hours will result in more than twice the total pay. You do realize that is in context with her other work which completely refutes your position? http://scholar.harvard.edu/goldin/publications/pollution-theory-discrimination-male-and-female-differences-occupations-andToo be fair what might be lost in my position isn't that men are evil discriminators, just that despite economic evidence that the disparity in pay is not reflective of a disparity of performance alone, can and should be addressed. Does it? Could you explain? The entire paper shows how discrimination (while not necessarily intentional or based on performance) results in wage disparity.
My position is that the wage gap is very small after you adjust for legitimate factors and it will likely be even smaller as more legitimate factors are discovered. My position is NOT that discrimination doesn't exist at all.
Additionally, the paper seems pretty theoretical and historical...
|
On January 28 2014 13:51 JonnyBNoHo wrote:
The part in bold refers to the idea that pay in some positions is "non-linear" e.g. working twice as many hours will result in more than twice the total pay.
more specificly it states that if you work an X% of full time position will have a higher wage than someone working a Y% of full time position. so i guess you are supposed to add two people who work in the X%-position together and see what this two headed, four armed creature could earn and compare them with one working in the Y%-position? maybe try to separate them into bits and sow them together into a person with twice their 'labour capacity'...
the author has a feeble grasp on the distinction between a linear and a non-linear function, which is surprising since it is one of the focal points of the paper.
|
On January 28 2014 15:53 nunez wrote:Show nested quote +On January 28 2014 13:51 JonnyBNoHo wrote:
[The part in bold refers to the idea that pay in some positions is "non-linear" e.g. working twice as many hours will result in more than twice the total pay. more specificly it states that if you work an X% of full time position will have a higher wage than someone working a Y% of full time position. so i guess you are supposed to add two people who work in the X%-position together and see what this two headed, four armed creature could earn and compare them with one working in the Y%-position? the author has a feeble grasp on the distinction between a linear and a non-linear function, which is surprising since it is one of the focal points of the paper.
My understanding:
Work is typically thought of in "hour" units. So someone working 30 hours will earn half as much as someone working 60 hours... assuming "linearity" e.g. dollars earned per hour are constant. But, some positions are "non-linear" and so working 60 will result in a higher per hour rate.
Edit: is your main point that you don't like the use of the words "linear" and "non-linear"?
|
yes, or lower, or at two places or not existing etc. but that was not really what was argued in the paper, yes, the 'case study' or what have you in the paper is clearly non-linear and so is the rest of the world.
but a flimsy 'mathematical framework' do not to justify, establish, or give weigth to preconceived notions on what relations are causing these dynamics, not to mention if you fail at establishing one...
it's nonsense, it's nonsense done wrong even.
you are handed a non linear function, you define a linearization wherein the linear dynamic is caused by preconcieved notions, you claim your linearization is non-linear (no, it's linear by your own definition) and from that it supposedly follows that the non-linear function is non-linear (yes, good) and that the non-linear dynamics are caused by said preconceived notions.
it is akin to failing at taking the derivative of x squared in an attempt to show that x is 'some beans'.
|
Well, altho the argument that the wage gap does not exist when you have more data is stupid, there is one thing that I wonder : does the wage gap disappear when we only take young generation in perspective ? Since young women are more efficient in school and that gender inequalities are completly different for them.
Also the idea that women dominate in teaching is retarded, they dominate for low grades only. In universities most teachers are men.
|
On January 28 2014 16:37 nunez wrote:
yes, or lower, or at two places or not existing etc. but that was not really what was argued in the paper, yes, the 'case study' or what have you in the paper is clearly non-linear and so is the rest of the world.
but a flimsy 'mathematical framework' do not to justify, establish, or give weigth to preconceived notions on what relations are causing these dynamics, not to mention if you fail at establishing one...
it's nonsense, it's nonsense done wrong even.
you are handed a non linear function, you define a linearization wherein the linear dynamic is caused by preconcieved notions, you claim your linearization is non-linear (no, it's linear by your own definition) and from that it supposedly follows that the non-linear function is non-linear (yes, good) and that the non-linear dynamics are caused by said preconceived notions.
it is akin to failing at taking the derivative of x squared in an attempt to show that x is 'some beans'.
She goes through examples of both linear and non-linear jobs and explains the differences between them. Where in there is your criticism, exactly? What preconceived notions do you have a problem with?
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT![[image loading]](http://thinkprogress.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/04/Screen-shot-2013-04-09-at-2.03.06-PM.png)
